Utopia Talk / Politics / How To Pay Off The National Debt.

Hot Rod Member	Sat Oct 23 01:20:14 Let's get rid of all of the restrictions that limit freedom of action and just keep the objective laws that protect the individual from the predators. Let's forget about declaring strategic resources untouchable because of some bug. Let's concentrate on bringing the best and brightest from around the world to fill our ranks. Let's foster freedom of thought coupled with freedom of opportunity. Let people think and produce. Let's recreate The American Dream. There will be 10,000 new ideas that will then pay off that debt.
Hot Peter Member	Sat Oct 23 01:57:44 http://www...-kotlikoff-richard-munroe.html "thresholds arenâ??t indexed for inflation, let alone growth in real incomes. So these taxes on â??the richâ?? will eventually hit everyone as nominal incomes rise with inflation "
Hot Peter Member	Sat Oct 23 01:59:58 "U.S. Debt Is Child Abuse"
Madc0w Member	Sat Oct 23 02:04:33 In other words, HR thinks getting rid of government regulations will solve everything.
Hot Rod Member	Sat Oct 23 08:17:51 Madc0w, if I buy a gold coin from you and pay you over $600 for it *you* are *REQUIRED BY LAW* to fill out a seven page report to the government. What purpose does a law like that serve as far as free enterprise and entrepreneurship is concerned? That is just one tiny example of what I am talking about. The gold brokers who buy and sell gold every day *MUST* fill out one of those reports for each sale they make. If they have 10,000 sales a year, that is 70,000 pages they must file with the government.
Paromount Member	Sat Oct 23 08:20:37 That's because gold threatens the Federal Reserve Bank, the true shadow government of America
W Member	Sat Oct 23 08:20:38 "What purpose does a law like that serve as far as free enterprise and entrepreneurship is concerned? " Because it's a tax code and if you make over 600 dollars in a year, or your business you must file that on your taxes. If you sold it for 599 and that was your profit, guess what, you wouldn't have to. Hope that clears things up.
Prophet Member	Sat Oct 23 08:30:42 I'm sure this was only a slip up by Hot Rod. Reportable Purchases Often, promoters will claim that the coins they offer are not subject to "reporting." Such statements imply the government requires gold transactions be reported. However, no government regulations require the reporting of the purchases of any precious metals, per se. If payment is made by cash greater than $10,000, however, it becomes a "cash reporting transaction." It is not the gold that the government wants reported but the cash. Such reporting applies to all business transactions involving more than $10,000 cash. Regarding cash transactions, Official General Instructions for IRS Form 8300 read: "Who Must File. - Each person engaged in a trade or business who, during that trade or business, receives more than $10,000 in cash in one transaction or two or more related transactions must file Form 8300. Any transactions conducted between a payer (or its agent) and the recipient in a 24-hour period are related transactions. This regulation applies to cash - greenbacks, paper money. It does not apply to personal checks, wire transfers, or money market withdrawals. When cashier's checks or money orders are involved, cash reporting may be triggered. Form 8300's General Instructions define as cash "a cashier's check, bank draft, traveler's check, or money order having a face amount of not more than $10,000." Using a cashier's check less than $10,000 would be a "cash transaction," but it would not be reportable because it is less than $10,000. However, two cashier's checks, each less than $10,000 but totaling more than $10,000 for a single purchase, would be considered cash and subject to reporting. Further clarification: If an investor makes a $15,000 investment in gold and pays with a single $15,000 cashier's check, it is not reportable. If, however, he pays with two or more cashier's checks each less than $10,000, the dealer would be obligated to report. Cash reporting requirements were not written specifically for the precious metals industry but for all businesses. The purchase of a car, boat, or jewelry, and payment with two cashier's checks, each less than $10,000 but totaling more than $10,000, would be a reportable transaction. Another example: an investor agrees to buy precious metals totaling more than $10,000, again say $15,000, and wants to make payments with money from two accounts. If the investor withdraws $8,000 from the first account and gets a cashier's check, and then gets another cashier's check for $7,000 from the second account, the transaction becomes reportable. A purchase of $30,000 and payment with two $15,000 cashier's checks would not be a reportable transaction. The significant amount is $10,000. Personal checks or checks drawn on the payer's own account are not considered cash. Form 8300's General Instructions read: "Cash does not included a check drawn on the payer's own account, such as a personal check, regardless of the amount."
jergul Member	Sat Oct 23 09:41:05 "What purpose does a law like that serve as far as free enterprise and entrepreneurship is concerned?" What the hell does gold purchases have to do with 99.99998% of free enterprise and entrepreneurial activity anyway? ======== Hot Rod Why don't you share with us a plan to pay back the debt over the next 40 years? Assume any tax revenue you like and assume federal spending at any level you like, though remember debt servicing costs at 2.5% interest above inflation. I would love to see exactly how small a federal government you want to have.
Sstrickland New Member	Sat Oct 23 09:43:04 Awwww!
ehcks Member	Sat Oct 23 09:46:53 "Each person engaged in a trade or business who, during that trade or business, receives more than $10,000 in cash in one transaction or two or more related transactions must file Form 8300. Any transactions conducted between a payer (or its agent) and the recipient in a 24-hour period are related transactions." HAH! And I thought my grandpa was lying. He used to be a manager at a car dealership, and told me a story about a guy who wanted to pay cash for a car. But he paid $9999 right there and then waited a week to pay the rest.
Hot Rod Member	Sat Oct 23 10:31:01 W - Because it's a tax code and if you make over 600 dollars in a year, or your business you must file that on your taxes. If you sold it for 599 and that was your profit, guess what, you wouldn't have to. As I understand you your logic could apply to any commodity, including a head of cabbage, but there is no seven page transaction report required for any other commodity that I am aware of. The only purpose I can think of for such a law is to track gold in preparation for a second national confiscation of gold. Prophet, the $10,000 cash reporting requirement is for cash only. If I write a check or make a wire transfer or use a debit card or use any instrument other than laying down cash that requirement is irrelevant. What I am talking about is *ANY* transaction in excess of $600 regardless of the method of payment requires the seven page report. This is a new law that was passed as an amendment to the health care legislation. "Coin Dealers Flipping Starting Jan. 1, 2012, Form 1099s will become a means of reporting to the Internal Revenue Service the purchases of all goods and services by small businesses and self-employed people that exceed $600 during a calendar year. Precious metals such as coins and bullion fall into this category and coin dealers have been among those most rankled by the change. This provision, intended to mine what the IRS deems a vast reservoir of uncollected income tax, was included in the health care legislation ostensibly as a way to pay for it. The tax code tweak is expected to raise $17 billion over the next 10 years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation." http://abc...ecry-tax-law/story?id=11211611 Evidently I was wrong in thinking it applied to *every* transaction, but my original statement still stands. "Effective by January 1, 2012 * New tax reporting changes come into effect which aims to prevent tax evasion by corporations. The provision is expected to raise $17 billion over 10 years.[53] Under the existing law, businesses have to notify the IRS of certain payments to individuals for certain services or property[54][55] over a reporting threshold: from this date the law is changed so that payments to corporations must also be reported.[56][57] There are a number of exceptions, for example: personal payments, payments for merchandise, telephone, freight, storage, payments of rent to real estate agents are exempt from reporting.[54] The amendments made by this section of the bill (SEC. 9006) shall apply to payments made by businesses after December 31, 2011.[55]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Effective_by_January_1.2C_2012 But let's not get bogged down in the ins and outs of this particular law. I just used it as an example. There are many regulations and laws that could be combined done away with and replaced with objective laws. jergul - Why don't you share with us a plan to pay back the debt over the next 40 years? I thought I had. Remove restrictions and barriers to entrepreneurship and let people run with their ideas. How many great ideas are tossed aside because people don't want to lose half their efforts to taxes while the government wastes those taxes. Just be sure to keep laws in place to protect against underhanded practices. In other words, some good old fasioned capitalism.
miltonfriedman Member	Sat Oct 23 10:40:36 "The only purpose I can think of for such a law is to track gold in preparation for a second national confiscation of gold." lulz. "I only have an 8th grade education" ~Molester Rod
jergul Member	Sat Oct 23 12:53:22 Hot Rod Still waiting for your budget proposal that allows for debt repayment over the next 40 years.
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Oct 23 12:55:25 "I thought I had. Remove restrictions and barriers to entrepreneurship and let people run with their ideas. How many great ideas are tossed aside because people don't want to lose half their efforts to taxes while the government wastes those taxes. Just be sure to keep laws in place to protect against underhanded practices." Stop picking on Rod, jergul. This is a better detailed plan than the GOP has.
jergul Member	Sat Oct 23 13:01:42 You do understand that first you have to take trillions out of your economy to stop government debt accumulation (the gov does not actually burn the money it borrows, most of it is spent on good and services domestically), then you have to take trillions more out of your economy to pay back what has already been borrowed. That money is not burned either. Perhaps a full 1/3 of what you pay back might end up being invested in the US with the rest being invested abroad. So first you are going to strengthen the spirit of entrepreneurship by removing trillions spent on goods and services from entrepreneurs. Then you are going to perpetuate the loss of business to entrepreneurs by using more money to repay debt instead of spending it on goods and services. Oh - The federal government owns a lot of land. Which it can do what it wants with according to Libertarian principles. Entrepreneurs can do the entrepreneur thing on their own land.
jergul Member	Sat Oct 23 13:02:10 CR True enough :)
jergul Member	Sat Oct 23 13:04:17 And if you believe that the federal government has no right to own land, then I am sure Russia would be happy to rebuy Alaska to correct that mistake.
voodooprophet Member	Sat Oct 23 13:20:26 --End Foreign Aid. http://www...statab/2010/tables/10s1263.pdf holy shit that eats up a ton of money. --Remove the US Department of Education. Give that power back to the states. http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/edhistory.pdf we are one of the dumbest countries in the world right now. Throwing more money at the problem isn't going to help children learn.
OsamaIsDaWorstPresid Member	Sat Oct 23 13:35:40 if we deporitd da libs n ragis n mexcans n niggers we wuld c our natonal iq tripel
jergul Member	Sat Oct 23 13:37:45 Voodo Uhm, even if we were to consider 35 billion dollars a lot of money in terms of aid. But point taken. Extraction from Iraq and Afghanistan. As would follow from slashing aid to both countries. And another 64 billion in expenses on the most part transferred from federal to state level. So you have shaved 100 billion off the federal budget at least. So 1/14th of the federal debt increase in 2009. Remember though that a lot of the aid is actually spent on US goods and services and that the education expenses would obviously just be transferred to the state level. http://www.federalreserve.gov/RELEASES/z1/Current/
Aeros Member	Sat Oct 23 13:48:14 Yeah, we should be like China and get rid of annoying oversight regulations. Like those for pollution control! Only hippies care about pollution anyway. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qan8qDKYKiU
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Sat Oct 23 13:48:37 http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=170071
Hot Rod Member	Sat Oct 23 14:26:49 Be serious, you know I am not going to sit down and create a federal budget for the next 40 years. I would not if I could. It would take time and a myriad of cuts and adjustments to even get started and it would take time. Start with taking away foreign aid and government subsidies. A great many cuts can be made there. Let the farmers adjust their prices, cut subsidies to the arts, and sciences. Stop spending to take care of every Tom, Dick and Jose that can climb a fence. Do away with tenure for grade and high schools. As voodooprophet said, get rid of the department of education and do we really need HUD. Open up oil exploration and yeah, sell off some of that government land but not to your buddy Russians. Sell it to our own people that can put it to use. Start pumping our own oil, open it up. There is hundreds of Billions we could keep at home every year right there. Abolish all Union Contracts and get some people in there to negotiate new ones that are practical and affordable. There are thousands, maybe millions of ways to save money. But, it will take an economic revolution to make it so. I don't know, we may have to have soup lines in some areas while we adjust. But I will tell you one thing, all of this would be a lot better and easier on us than what is coming if we stay on the present course.
jergul Member	Sat Oct 23 14:43:44 Opening up Alaska would let you keep 35 USD billion at home each year. Not really a bad idea if you follow the Norwegian model. 85-90% of profits from the drilling will end up in government coffers. Or say 5 billion USD a year. So 1/280th of the debt the government accumulated in 2009. Noted that you want to break legal contracts, though if you wanted real gains you should listen to the communist in you and break legal contracts relating to property ownership. The main point is really how you intend to save money without removing spending on goods and services entrepreneurs depend on. Every cut in spending will result in a gdp growth lower than it otherwise would have been. This cannot be regained from increased private spending as your stated goal is to use the savings to stop debt accumulation and repay accumulated debth. I have to ask. Are you an agent in the employ of Russian or Chinese security services? The reason for the question is of course linked to "who gains?" from your ideas.
jergul Member	Sat Oct 23 16:23:01 Cat got your brain HR?
Hot Rod Member	Sat Oct 23 16:29:34 Go away jergul. I am not about to argue jergul economics with you. BTW, I guess you consider Obama a communist for breaking the contracts with the investors in the auto industry and giving their assets to the unions.
jergul Member	Sat Oct 23 16:44:18 You mean the chapter 11 negotiations after the companies filed for bankruptcy? Assets less than liabilities. The companies had no net value. So a deal was hashed out with major creditors to limit their losses. The economic question is easy to understand. Government does not burn the money it borrows and most of it creates demand for goods and services from entrepreneurs. So when you cut debt accumulation, you cut the life blood entrepreneurs depend on. To repay debt you channel money into investment domestically, but mostly abroad instead of it being spent on goods and services provided by entrepreneurs. So basically, your plan will bankrupt many entrepreneurs for no good purpose. Killing the American Dream dead so to speak.
Hot Rod Member	Sat Oct 23 16:52:46 I am not about to argue jergul economics with you. You know very well what he did.
jergul Member	Sat Oct 23 16:57:29 The above is common sense and in no way as complex as some of the jergulmath you wisely avoid as being somewhat above your head. There are other posters of course who may have comments, but the general principle outlined is sound. It calls the thread premise as contradicting BS. You cannot help entrepreneurs and keep the American Dream alive by paying back federal debt as the measures required will maim the first and kill the second dead.
Hot Rod Member	Sat Oct 23 17:16:13 Have you ever thought of doing both at once? Instead of hiring some lame Progressive college professor to be the czar over the economy bring in a respected private accounting firm, or several, that knows what they are doing and let them get started. I don't expecthem to do everything that needs done at once. According to you government can only operate one department at a time.
jergul Member	Sat Oct 23 17:21:04 Both at the same time meaning spending both more on goods and services provided by entrepreneurs while at the same time spending less on goods and services provided by entrepreneurs? My god, that would be wicked!
Hot Rod Member	Sat Oct 23 17:32:47 ^-jergul economics. Please take your voodoo elsewhere. BUT FOR GOD'S SAKE DO **********NOT********** START ANOTHER THREAD. I LIKE THIS ONE.
jergul Member	Sat Oct 23 17:36:11 Heaven forbid. Though God knows why you like this one. You certainly are a glutton for punishment in public spectacle.
Milton Bradley Member	Sun Oct 24 05:52:06 funny how hotrod already knows his 7 page, $600 etcetera nonsense is nonsense since he's been shown the facts several times before. Just like in this thread, he's been made aware of the truth but will simply continue to peddle his lie in other threads in the future anyway. Waste of time.
roland Member	Sun Oct 24 07:22:36 "I am not about to argue jergul economics with you." Open minded as always.
miltonfriedman Member	Sun Oct 24 10:37:35 Here is an example where Molester Rod immediately declared an end of discussion in his own thread immediately after Rugian had said something he disagreed with: http://www...hread=24397&time=1253938603446
mrbeer Member	Mon Oct 25 05:54:27 'BUT FOR GOD'S SAKE DO **********NOT********** START ANOTHER THREAD. " not-Angel's fascist tendencies know no bounds, here he is ordering other posters not to make threads about a topic he started.
mrbeer Member	Mon Oct 25 05:55:11 'I OWN THIS TOPIC AND NO-ONE ELSE CAN POST ABOUT IT OR CALL ME ON MY LIES ABOUT GOLD COIN BEAUROCRACY!!!!!'
Hot Rod Member	Mon Oct 25 06:50:07 mr beer, he *did* start another thread that was different from my subject and then *HE DELETED MY THREAD.* My thread was about which candidate California would get for governor. His thread was about which "representative" California would get. Two totally different subjects. HE HAD NO RIGHT TO DELETE MY THREAD. He abused his power as a Mod.
Milton Bradley Member	Mon Oct 25 08:08:03 Hmm, but the possibility, which is the most likely scenerio, is who will be representing CA as governor, which would make more sense, since there is more than one more running for gov. of CA. You are aware that Representative has more than one meaning, yes? Remember you are the one that likes to spam the forum with dictionary terms. Maybe you should go see other meanings for representative, way, maybe I can help you? You always had trouble with context or the real meaning of peoples' words. 1. a person or thing that represents another or others. 5. serving to represent; representing. That's what a governor does right? I thought so.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Oct 25 08:14:10 MB - You are aware that Representative has more than one meaning, yes? Yes I am. Are you? Are you aware that 'governor' has a *SPECIFIC* meaning? My thread was specific to the one race, jerguls covered dozens of possible candidates. He abused his power as Mod, there is no getting around that no matter how you spin it.
Milton Bradley Member	Mon Oct 25 08:21:13 "Are you aware that 'governor' has a *SPECIFIC* meaning? " Governor has others means as does a representative, depending on the context of course. Which you have trouble with, historically I might add. "My thread was specific to the one race, jerguls covered dozens of possible candidates. " There are more than two running for governor for CA, it seem to me it was a more correct REPRESENTATION of that race. (See how I used another meaning for the word 'represent', fancy aye?) "He abused his power as Mod, there is no getting around that no matter how you spin it. " I didn't comment about the "abuse". I commented about the meaning of a word that you are most likely misusing due to the context of the meaning of the thread. As you are trying to argue semantics, but honestly you can't argue semantics if you do not understand context. I know this is difficult for you to comprehend, especially having only an 8th grade education. You may still function in society, but such levels are comprehension are still out of bounds for you. Now for me to comment about the "abuse", you did say: "Then go somewhere and, "rephrase the thread topic..." So that's what he did, he rephrased it, per your request, so the topic is the same, but is more correctly stated, per your request.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Oct 25 08:51:53 MB - Governor has others means as does a representative, depending on the context of course. Which you have trouble with, historically I might add. Just exactly *what context* do you think the OP is referring to? "Will Californi Get What The Need or Hot Rod Member Sat Oct 23 01:35:12 What They Deserve? You Vote: 1) Brown 2) Whitman" >-There are more than two running for governor for CA, it seem to me it was a more correct REPRESENTATION of that race. (See how I used another meaning for the word 'represent', fancy aye?) Yes, there are more than two candidates running for governor of California. * Jerry Brown * Meg Whitman * Carlos Alvarez (Peace and Freedom) * Chelene Nightingale (American Independent) * Dale Ogden (Libertarian) * Laura Wells (Green) Out of those six whic *TWO* do you think has a snowballs chance in hell of being elected. >-I didn't comment about the "abuse". I commented about the meaning of a word that you are most likely misusing due to the context of the meaning of the thread. Governor - Specific Representative - Includes all representatives elected to The California Legislature. >-Now for me to comment about the "abuse", you did say: "Then go somewhere and, "rephrase the thread topic..." So that's what he did, he rephrased it, per your request, so the topic is the same, but is more correctly stated, per your request. Only a complete and utter moron would take that to mean that I wanted my *LEGITIMATE* thread deleted. Especially when you look at it in context "I am sure there are more opinions once we rephrase the thread topic to something possible to respond to." How can anyone possibly respond to his thread as regards the governors race. He *DID NOT* rephrase the title of my thread. He*FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGED* the subject of the thread. And there *IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING THERE* that says I wanted my thread deleted. That interpretation is just plain stupid. That is why you people are so hard to talk to. You are not the least bit interested in having a reasonable discussion, all you want to do is focus on a slight misspeak and insist my meaning is something other than I obviously intended. Yet when you misspeak and I ask you for clarification or try to pin you down you claim I am hijacking the thread. The sad part is, you people will never understand how wrong you are.
jergul Member	Mon Oct 25 09:09:54 "I am hijacking the thread. " Indeed you are.
miltonfriedman Member	Mon Oct 25 09:12:17 This is pure gold. I hope jergul will continue to delete Molester Rod's threads and replace them with new ones.
Milton Bradley Member	Mon Oct 25 09:24:24 "Just exactly *what context* do you think the OP is referring to? " Which candidates will might become governor of CA. "Yes, there are more than two candidates running for governor of California. " Yes. A facted that has been noted and emphasized, especially with the thread title changed per your request. "Out of those six whic *TWO* do you think has a snowballs chance in hell of being elected. " That's unfair, because that wasn't what was asked, as there are more than two running. Why do you discourage other opinions? Why do you discourage other votes? Why are you against other candidates? Why does it have to be those to as there are multiple candidates running? Why did you ask: Will Californi Get What The Need or What They Deserve? Other candidates deserve to be noticed too, you did ask what they deserve, other candidates are just as likely to be a better representive as governor. "Governor - Specific Representative - Includes all representatives elected to The California Legislature. " Both can be used in variances of adjectives and words, hence why there are multiple meanings for both. Which why the thread title was rephrased per your request, and you still misinterpret the meaning. Congratulations, you are proving more and more as to why you have an 8th grade education. "Only a complete and utter moron would take that to mean that I wanted my *LEGITIMATE* thread deleted. Especially when you look at it in context "I am sure there are more opinions once we rephrase the thread topic to something possible to respond to." How can anyone possibly respond to his thread as regards the governors race. He *DID NOT* rephrase the title of my thread. He*FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGED* the subject of the thread. And there *IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING THERE* that says I wanted my thread deleted. That interpretation is just plain stupid. " Subject stayed the same. "That is why you people are so hard to talk to. You are not the least bit interested in having a reasonable discussion, all you want to do is focus on a slight misspeak and insist my meaning is something other than I obviously intended. " You faked your death. People were going to spend money to send your family or well-wishers cards, flowers, and condolences. People were actually going to take their time to give you respect, in fact those who had disagreed with you or didn't care for you in the first place decided to show you respect. But you spat on everyone one of them. You care not for discussion as you been blatantly spamming and trolling for years now. You do not consider other POVs, you jump on a bandwagon only to be a trumpeter for other peoples' views and not your own, only to place a tag of "IMHO" which isn't your opinion as it been discovered you're repeating Glenn Beck or some other dipshit for Fox. When shown how you are incorrect, you only admit it with a disclaimer instead of just accepting being emphatically wrong. You give no respect to anyone else, which was covered already due to your faking of your death. You call everyone liberals who disagree with your assertions even if they aren't liberals. You ceremoniously spam the thread with threads then only get pissed off when someone doesn't agree with it. You use the same sources that you criticize others of using saying they are bias, but not bias when you use them. (You have used Huffington Post before, but told others they can't use them because of it's source) So before you go off and judge others how you are being treated or how they cannot hold such a decorum. You need to stop and take a look in the mirror before next time you spout off a bunch of bullshit. Other than that you can go to hell.
Milton Bradley Member	Mon Oct 25 18:57:39 Why so mum?
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: