So you [Guy/Major] wish to close all government functions just because you think a few are bad. Just so you understand, you are advocating suicide. I believe that would meet the test of being a clear and present danger to oneself or others. Once you take a rational position, then there can be rational debate and people will listen to you, otherwise you belong in a rubber room.

Make a list and check it twice.

---

Yes Major, by all means, shut the government water system, shut the government sewer, shut the government road, lay off the prison guards and let the inmates go, dump the air traffic controllers, layoff the FDA food inspectors, dump the TSA, FBI, ATF, CBP, Secret Service, Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Marines and Air force, the IRS and all the rest. Shut the government because anarchy is the best!

Shut down *this* Government, maybe. The pain which you describe in your response would be great, true. But it will be LESS than the pain we would suffer if the Government is allowed to spend us all into oblivion.

This way, we would still have something left to start over with. If the Big Government people don't change and see reason, then their house of cards collapses, we won't have anything left. Not really any starting over possible in that case.

In http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=66505&nowrap=true#1187828:

Guy Navarro wrote:

Well Gary, here's an example why we're on our way to a financial winter.

Everytime a small government person says lets suffer a little now and have a lot more later, a big government person over reacts and says things like "the small government person wants to starve children and kill grandmothers."

And that's why we're on our way to a financial ice-age.

WARNING: Do not attempt to install while drunk, pregnant, or both.

Well, someone else understands, it seems.

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. -- Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Okay Major/Guy time for you to put up.

As of this instant use no more government services. Start digging your septic tank! Find your own water. Figure out how to get your food to you without using a public street. Try and pay your bills without a Federal Reserve Bank. Don't forget the electricity for you computer comes via a government easement and so does your internet service. Can't use a cell phone without the FCC.

Let's see you do this for just a week. Let us know how you do. Oh, I forgot, the Internet was a DARPA project, so you can't let us know.

Remember it starts now when you finish reading the post.

---

Okay Major/Guy time for you to put up.

As of this instant use no more government services. Start digging your septic tank! Find your own water. Figure out how to get your food to you without using a public street. Try and pay your bills without a Federal Reserve Bank. Don't forget the electricity for you computer comes via a government easement and so does your internet service. Can't use a cell phone without the FCC.

Let's see you do this for just a week. Let us know how you do. Oh, I forgot, the Internet was a DARPA project, so you can't let us know.

Remember it starts now when you finish reading the post.

Sorry.

Sewer Service: I pay a private, non-government company for my sewer service.
Water Service: Same. I pay a private company. Same with trash service. Direct business relationship with a private company.
Food: I have over a week's worth of food in my home, and no real reason to leave for the next week (I usually go shopping only about once every two weeks or so, and rarely leave my house otherwise). Besides, the street outside my house is privately owned, not public, and there is a grocery store at the end of it.
Bills: They are all paid for the next two weeks.
Easements: they are not government property, but private property. An easement is just permission from the private property owner to another private entity to run a certain thing through the property along a certain path. The property is still owned by the initial owner. My electricity and internet come to me via private business arrangements with private businesses. The only government involvement is through setting rates. If the PUC goes away, and I cannot negotiate a rate I am willing to pay with those private businesses, I will disconnect service. Simple as that.
Cell phone: I don't currently use a cell phone, nor do I have one active at the moment.

I rarely use local government services. Never had to call the police or fire dept. in the 15 years I have lived here. State governmental services? Some use, but meaningless over the week in question. Federal services: well, aside from the continuous services like military protection, I don't use much, if any. But, I do still pay my taxes (all levels), and receive zero in 'government benefits' wealth transfer payments. Effectively, I 'put up' YEARS ago.

I chose where I live very carefully.

Going a week without voluntarily making direct use of government services would not inconvenience me at all. How about you? You say the same?

Sewer Service: I pay a private, non-government company for my sewer service.

And not a foot of that sewer line runs in government land or discharges a drop into government property.

Water Service: Same. I pay a private company.

And not a foot of that water line runs in government land. Not a drop of that water came via a government project or managed by a government water basin manager.

Same with trash service. Direct business relationship with a private company.

Notice I didn't list trash, but I bet they use a government road to haul it away. Wonder if they dump it in a municipal dump?

Food: I have over a week's worth of food in my home, and no real reason to leave for the next week (I usually go shopping only about once every two weeks or so, and rarely leave my house otherwise). Besides, the street outside my house is privately owned, not public, and there is a grocery store at the end of it.

Wonder how the store is going to restock ... or is it just past the end of the private road, which will be blocked so you can't get to the public government road.

Bills: They are all paid for the next two weeks.

Good for you and I bet you don't get a paycheck either.

Easements: they are not government property, but private property. An easement is just permission from the private property owner to another private entity to run a certain thing through the property along a certain path. The property is still owned by the initial owner.

Precisely. The government owns the street all your utilities either run down or cross somewhere, so they grant an easement to the utility company.

My electricity and internet come to me via private business arrangements with private businesses.

Really? Are you sure your private utility company generates every electron, or do they buy power from government generators?

How can you get internet without using IP? After all IP is a government invention.

The only government involvement is through setting rates. If the PUC goes away, and I cannot negotiate a rate I am willing to pay with those private businesses, I will disconnect service. Simple as that.
Cell phone: I don't currently use a cell phone, nor do I have one active at the moment.

I rarely use local government services.

You use them every day, you are just so stupid that you don't realize it or intentionally want to deceive yourself into believing that you don't. Your precious faux news wouldn't exist without the FCC.

Never had to call the police or fire dept. in the 15 years I have lived here. State governmental services? Some use, but meaningless over the week in question. Federal services: well, aside from the continuous services like military protection, I don't use much, if any. But, I do still pay my taxes (all levels), and receive zero in 'government benefits' wealth transfer payments. Effectively, I 'put up' YEARS ago.

I chose where I live very carefully.

Going a week without voluntarily making direct use of government services would not inconvenience me at all. How about you? You say the same?

---

Dang it. Skil, I warned you not to hack Gary's account. Now people are going to be very confused, seeing avowed Libertarians infighting.

Sewer Service: I pay a private, non-government company for my sewer service.

And not a foot of that sewer line runs in government land or discharges a drop into government property.

Water Service: Same. I pay a private company.

And not a foot of that water line runs in government land. Not a drop of that water came via a government project or managed by a government water basin manager.

Same with trash service. Direct business relationship with a private company.

Notice I didn't list trash, but I bet they use a government road to haul it away. Wonder if they dump it in a municipal dump?

Food: I have over a week's worth of food in my home, and no real reason to leave for the next week (I usually go shopping only about once every two weeks or so, and rarely leave my house otherwise). Besides, the street outside my house is privately owned, not public, and there is a grocery store at the end of it.

Wonder how the store is going to restock ... or is it just past the end of the private road, which will be blocked so you can't get to the public government road.

Bills: They are all paid for the next two weeks.

Good for you and I bet you don't get a paycheck either.

Easements: they are not government property, but private property. An easement is just permission from the private property owner to another private entity to run a certain thing through the property along a certain path. The property is still owned by the initial owner.

Precisely. The government owns the street all your utilities either run down or cross somewhere, so they grant an easement to the utility company.

My electricity and internet come to me via private business arrangements with private businesses.

Really? Are you sure your private utility company generates every electron, or do they buy power from government generators?

How can you get internet without using IP? After all IP is a government invention.

The only government involvement is through setting rates. If the PUC goes away, and I cannot negotiate a rate I am willing to pay with those private businesses, I will disconnect service. Simple as that.
Cell phone: I don't currently use a cell phone, nor do I have one active at the moment.

I rarely use local government services.

You use them every day, you are just so stupid that you don't realize it or intentionally want to deceive yourself into believing that you don't. Your precious faux news wouldn't exist without the FCC.

Never had to call the police or fire dept. in the 15 years I have lived here. State governmental services? Some use, but meaningless over the week in question. Federal services: well, aside from the continuous services like military protection, I don't use much, if any. But, I do still pay my taxes (all levels), and receive zero in 'government benefits' wealth transfer payments. Effectively, I 'put up' YEARS ago.

I chose where I live very carefully.

Going a week without voluntarily making direct use of government services would not inconvenience me at all. How about you? You say the same?

Sarge, Gary's a dare I say it, *moderate* Libertarian. <smile>.

Major and Guy are Texas Libertarians (sounds like west Texas libertarians). We have some of them here in Arizona as well.

Dang it. Skil, I warned you not to hack Gary's account. Now people are going to be very confused, seeing avowed Libertarians infighting.

You really think removing the one thing that keeps corporate polluters in check is a good idea. We still have massively polluted rivers and lakes from which we shouldn't eat any fish. Rivers on fire? please tell me you like lead in your paint and are willing to eat meat that hasn't even remotely been inspected. What you see as excessive regulation I see reduced deaths and sickness from tainted food and water.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

You are proving the point of methods to reduce the debt -- kill people off sooner -- it is cheaper -- especially without a requirement to treat the sicknesses caused by bad food, water and air.

What you see as excessive regulation I see reduced deaths and sickness from tainted food and water.

You are incorrect to assume I (and probably kong) want to competely shut down government.

If the federal government would put out a budget (something else they're ignoring in the constitution), we could discuss/debate some of the lines in it. But our current administration absolutely refuses to put out a budget, because it would give his adversaries some real cannon fodder to throw his way when the presidential debates begin.

Do I want to do away with police/fire/water/sanitation/electricity/natural gas/etc.? No.

Do I want to do away with the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Education, Health Care Protection Act/Medicare/Medicaid, at least 1/2 the IRS, at least 1/3 the military, at least 1/4 of social security, (and I could go on), Yes.

Do I have a personal vendetta against those relying on government subsistance? No.

Do I see the ratio between our national debt and our national wealth? Yes.

Do I see a way to prevent the US from going into hyperinflation? I still do at this time.

Do I see a national will to do what it takes to prevent real misery in the future? No. I see a majority who are not thinking about their future, or their children's future.

I'm not so sure about MajorKong not wanting a total shutdown. I'm wondering if he is an anarchist and not a libertarian.

Hey, a list. Now we can have some rational debate ...

As to that budget, remind me what day the Constitution says the profit Obama has to release it? We know Congress ignores it anyway. So when does the CBO release theirs?

So "police/fire/water/sanitation/electricity/natural gas/etc." are musts and we need to fund them. We also need to fund "at least 1/2 the IRS, at least 1/3 the military, at least 1/4 of social security, (and I could go on)" We also need to fund the interest on the national debt.

You do know that in a real budget "etc." and "and I could go on" aren't acceptable. You must list everything. Like prisons. Their funding is related to how many things are crimes and how long the sentences are. Ready to trim some to save some money?

Now do you want the budget on a cash basis or an accrual basis?

Once the budget is done, if the projection is not enough revenue will come in, what do you do about that?

---

I love liberterians they live in a perfect world where we don't need a strong federal gov't nor collect taxes or have the ability to collect taxes. Yet we'll still have a gov't and a military. I can't see how you'd pay for that nifty new stealth tank unless you collect taxes or better yet pay for the guy to drive that stealth tank. Someone had better pay taxes or no military budget no executive budget and certainly now wages for any gov't employee.\

We went over this a few years ago and its pretty clear that libertarians like to play dumb about simple things like the constitution and collecting taxes etc. They'd rather leave you imagining a gov't that is stripped down lean and mean when in fact it would pretty much be non functioning. Non money means no work unless you are paying people in groceries or some other barter system.

The one true Libertarian that I knew wanted people to arm themselves and police the cities by themselves. That would be great. We could call these patrols a Police force and they could be responsible to enforce the laws.

He was also a great advocate of buying Gold. Gold? really? Sooo does gold acrue interest? nope. multiply in value in any way? nope. if you own an ounce of gold you basically can either wait for the price to go up then sell. or hold onto it and have it taken from you because when anarchy takes hold with the libertarians in charge you'll find your neighbor invested in a shotgun and he wants your shiny piece of metal.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

I'm not so sure about MajorKong not wanting a total shutdown. I'm wondering if he is an anarchist and not a libertarian.

No, I don't want a total shutdown of the federal government. But a shutdown of the federal government for a brief time may be necessary to convince the politicians in Washington DC that there is one heck of a train-wreck problem we are headed for and motivate them to do what is necessary to fix it.

Hey, a list. Now we can have some rational debate ...

As to that budget, remind me what day the Constitution says the profit Obama has to release it? We know Congress ignores it anyway. So when does the CBO release theirs?

Its not in the Constitution. But it is in statue law. Budget and Accounting act of 1921, The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control act of 1974, and others. President's Budget: Between the first Monday in Jan. and the first Monday in Feb., usually is submitted on the last day of that time frame. The CBO analysis of the President's budget is due sometime in March. Congress then has until the beginning of the fiscal year (Oct. 1) to complete the process (the process being a bit more involved than just passing a budget which is really only the first step). Budget Resolution, Authorizations, then Appropriations.

Effectively, we are still operating (through some trickery) under the last Budget Resolution passed (under Bush the Younger). Congress has not seen fit to pass a Budget Resolution so far during the Obama presidency, but this is hardly Obama's fault. The Budget Resolution is not a law, it does not go to the President for a signature.

Normally, the President submits a budget suggestion to Congress. Congress then either adopts the President's suggestion as is in a Budget Resolution, adopts it with amendments (changes), or totally comes up with one of their own and adopts it. During Obama's first two years, he submitted his budget suggestion, but the Democrat controlled House and the Democrat controlled (with a supermajority, even... filibuster proof) Senate refused to act. This past year (his 3rd), Obama submitted his suggestion, The Republican controlled House passed a Budget Resolution and sent it to the Senate. The Democrat controlled (though no longer with a supermajority) Senate then refused to act. Then, whose fault is it? The Congressional Democrats. Not even when they had a lock on the Presidency, the House, AND the Senate did those Democrats pass a Budget Resolution.

Not exactly a constitutional crisis, but a rather clear cut case of them not wanting to follow the law.

So "police/fire/water/sanitation/electricity/natural gas/etc." are musts and we need to fund them. We also need to fund "at least 1/2 the IRS, at least 1/3 the military, at least 1/4 of social security, (and I could go on)" We also need to fund the interest on the national debt.

Police/fire/water/sanitation: these are local government issues in almost all cases, not federal. Electricity and Natural Gas are almost always a non-government corporation issue (though they might *buy* some of the resources from the government (gas lease fees on public land, etc)).

The interest on the national debt is a federal government issue, and is required by both the Constitution and Federal Law (reviewed and upheld by the Supreme Court) to be paid FIRST out of tax (or other) receipts. You can't avoid this one, nor can it be cut any other way but paying it down.

You do know that in a real budget "etc." and "and I could go on" aren't acceptable. You must list everything. Like prisons. Their funding is related to how many things are crimes and how long the sentences are. Ready to trim some to save some money?

Now do you want the budget on a cash basis or an accrual basis?

Once the budget is done, if the projection is not enough revenue will come in, what do you do about that?

Neither cash nor accrual, really... And your question does not apply.

Set it up so that you can only spend this year what was received as revenue last year. The first year would require some special treatment, but that could be worked out.

And as to your comment on prisons... Not so very long ago, the Texas Prison system was fairly self-sufficient. Just change the law such that prisoners would once again work with their pay going towards their upkeep like it was in, for instance, the Texas Prison Farm before certain Federal Judges spanked us over it. This would have the additional benefit that those prisoners without one could be taught a useful trade for when they got out.

This would, at least, somewhat reduce the per prisoner expense, and any of the prisoner's *wages* in excess of their upkeep costs could be held for them in a bank account so they could have a 'nest egg' to start over on when they got released.

And I am in favor of reducing the number of things that are crimes, though perhaps not in shorting the sentence length... I don't think that a lot of the people in prison truly belong there, but those that do perhaps need to stay a bit longer.

Edit: Guy beat me to posting some of this... Its what I get for falling asleep while typing. :P

It strikes me that some of the most 'libertarian' or at least non-government groups of folks lurk just south of the US border. Perhaps that's the governance style some folks would like to see.

Guy, to answer your laundry list one by one would overbudget the thread I believe.

But a point for you, the DOE does nuclear -- a lot more money there than in subsidies to electric cars. I suspect you knew that and were pointing out the electric cars to be argumentative.

Much of the rest of your list has similar oversimplifications of what is done -- and likely for the same purpose.

I suppose you want your military retirement benefits to be zeroed out -- no wait, you are willing to see them reduced (I probably wouldn't advocate that myself) in exchange for eliminating (nope perhaps reducing) the expenditures of other departments.

As to increases of revenue, I'm willing to see increases for more than just mega rich. Heck, I'd even go for a flat tax - say 20% after the first $30K or $40K with no deductions, and the same rate for capital gains and dividends. I'd go for Social Security tax to be on the same income measure (ie including capital gains and dividends) and eliminate the top end cut off as well.

Guy, to answer your laundry list one by one would overbudget the thread I believe.

But a point for you, the DOE does nuclear -- a lot more money there than in subsidies to electric cars. I suspect you knew that and were pointing out the electric cars to be argumentative.

Much of the rest of your list has similar oversimplifications of what is done -- and likely for the same purpose.

I suppose you want your military retirement benefits to be zeroed out -- no wait, you are willing to see them reduced (I probably wouldn't advocate that myself) in exchange for eliminating (nope perhaps reducing) the expenditures of other departments.

As to increases of revenue, I'm willing to see increases for more than just mega rich. Heck, I'd even go for a flat tax - say 20% after the first $30K or $40K with no deductions, and the same rate for capital gains and dividends. I'd go for Social Security tax to be on the same income measure (ie including capital gains and dividends) and eliminate the top end cut off as well.

BarryAz.

This is the 2nd time in the last day or so that you have mentioned a 20% flat tax, though on the first one you only wanted to exclude the first $20K...

1. Why the increase from $20K to $30K to $40K?

2. In a flat tax of this sort, income is income.. No need for you to seperately mention dividends and capital gains.. It would be ALL taxed at the same rate (20% after $20K).

3. If you REPLACED ALL Federal Taxes (and other revenues) with the 20% after $20K flat tax on individual taxpayer income (with no other deductions, exemptions, or credits) you proposed, it would be about a 2.11% revenue *increase*. There would not BE a separate Social Security tax in that case.

If you insist on maintaining a separate Social Security / Medicare Tax, you would only need about an 11.1% rate on the flat tax to maintain revenue neutrality. But remember, if the 'payroll taxes' (Social Security and Medicare taxes) are folded into the flat tax, there is no more 'top end cutoff'...

Or, was your point to over DOUBLE the revenue the Federal Government receives by replacing only the individual federal income tax with the flat tax?

The Department of Justice spent about (estimated) $3 Billion more than last year.
--For what? I don't see the Supreme Court doing what they're supposed to do, and I don't see any unfilled judge seats being filled.

LOL Really, since when does the USAG or FBI appoint judges ...

Guy, the number of falsehoods in your post is nearly one per item. Factcheck would have a field day with you. While Barry seems to think you are doing so intentionally to inflame, I not so sure it isn't simple ignorance, because I know you would not violate the posting rules:

No messages intended to annoy or antagonize other people...

But the cause doesn't matter -- Tis far better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt -- so if it is obvious you don't know what you are talking about, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously? If you intend on flambe why should anyone pay any attention to you?

---

I increased the base to reduce the revenues after all, an the increase was as you noted too much.

As to the increase to revenue, you know as well as I that after lobbyists got a hold of it, large batches of deductions and exclusions would be attached to adjust for that. You know, mortgage interest, contributions to charities, that sort of thing. Surely that would drain the revenues down as well.

Most of the flat tax folks out there seem inclined to exclude (or reduce the hit) on things like dividends and capital gains -- that's why I chose to emphasize a suggestion that it not be excluded here. A lot of the flat taxes advocates would pale at that.


Besides, the boost in revenues would help pay off the deficit that much faster once one eliminates government <smile>.

This is the 2nd time in the last day or so that you have mentioned a 20% flat tax, though on the first one you only wanted to exclude the first $20K...

1. Why the increase from $20K to $30K to $40K?

2. In a flat tax of this sort, income is income.. No need for you to seperately mention dividends and capital gains.. It would be ALL taxed at the same rate (20% after $20K).

3. If you REPLACED ALL Federal Taxes (and other revenues) with the 20% after $20K flat tax on individual taxpayer income (with no other deductions, exemptions, or credits) you proposed, it would be about a 2.11% revenue *increase*. There would not BE a separate Social Security tax in that case.

If you insist on maintaining a separate Social Security / Medicare Tax, you would only need about an 11.1% rate on the flat tax to maintain revenue neutrality. But remember, if the 'payroll taxes' (Social Security and Medicare taxes) are folded into the flat tax, there is no more 'top end cutoff'...

Or, was your point to over DOUBLE the revenue the Federal Government receives by replacing only the individual federal income tax with the flat tax?