I would not be so quick to apply party labels here.

It is also factually inaccurate.

I'm not sure that this is true.  There are too many factors playing into this.  I doubt there is a really big difference here.


I'm glad we agree on a point.  The reason I think it's not a good thing is:  1) it promotes the government taking away your property to give to someone who hasn't earned it (taxes, etc.), and 2) it takes away some of the incentive to think big, and more particularly to do anything to make "big" happen because the government will take away more of your money than you can handle and still rise steadily.  That's why it's called the "American Dream," not the "European Dream."

Another result of this is that smaller companies have a harder time rising to the top in Europe.  We have been speaking about individual incomes, but really a key issue is rising companies (not to mention the jobs they hand out to people).  So the rich/poor disparity for individuals may be higher in the U.S., but it is higher for companies in Europe and parts of Asia.  For example, how many Japanese companies can you remember the name of?  Sony, Kawasaki, Toyota...there are huge conglomerates...but it is unrealistic in Japan to think you can build your mom and pop shop to a major franchise because of the many obstacles in the way.  It's possible...but more difficult.


We're not talking about people who make it big.  We're talking about those with professional careers primarily (doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc.), and those building up businesses.  The professionals make less money than in the U.S. (often by as much as half), and this hurts the economy and the availability of services (and quality) because of those not incentivized to go into those professions.  And also, as mentioned above, the incentive to grow business is not as much there.

Keep in mind also that, although you seem to look down on the wealthy, it is the wealthy who give the jobs to the middle and lower class.  When the money of the wealthy is taken away, it is simply shifted to cutting jobs and increasing prices.

When I started getting hit with high California taxes, I decided to cut costs and stopped hiring pest control and lawn maintenance.  Those two small businesses lost business thanks to the government.  Those types of businesses are now very much faltering in the current economy.


I don't think this is an accurate statement, or at least it's not clear to me what you mean.


Yes, on the individual scale, but not on the grander scale of creating jobs and giving opportunities to people.  How many employees do lower class and middle class people have?  And who gives them their jobs?  The wealthy or the government.  The government takes from the wealthy to create those jobs (which jobs, I might add, have little "opportunity" of ultimate wealth creation) and the wealthy create opportunities and wealth.  When the wealthy aren't free to create wealth (which is what they're typically good at), we all suffer because wealth gets wasted (through primarily taxes and bureaucracy).



Touche.  I agree that the US adopted the European model too much in that case.  I am trying to harken us back to pre-Roosevelt models, which is what America and the American Dream were founded on.  Since the 30s, America has become more and more socialist in nature...which is not all bad.

But as they say, there's only one thing you can never get out of Washington D.C.:  a government program.


The problem with socialist models is that they create the bubble, which seems good for awhile, and then the bubble always bursts.  Just as it did when the US started carving out socialist policies in 1996 under Clinton and democratic congress that eventually led to the housing crisis.


My comments here were taken directly from a business article, so I won't quibble.


The problem is that you are focused on "insurance."  When I was in school without insurance, my wife got really sick and was in the hospital.  We applied for medicaid, and it was paid.  As mentioned, there is also bankruptcy available.  But the key is that if you have an emergency, the emergency room will still treat you.  They'll work out payment plans or it'll go against your credit, or you file bankruptcy or apply for Medicaid.  But YOU WILL STILL GET THE TREATMENT IF YOU NEED IT.

If you want elective benefits, you'll have to have insurance or pay for them.  I don't see why that's wrong or why I should pay for someone else's elective benefits.


This makes no sense.  If you take a loan for school, it is paying for you.  Are you talking about paying it off later?  If that's the case, then the person has chosen the wrong career track to take out loans for.  It is all manageable and doable if done wisely.


It's actually nothing at all like that...


I really think this is a very inapplicable analogy.  The NFL has very limited amount of space and it's more of a lottery shoot.  There are many vocations available for people who move toward goals and plan it out.

And if they choose not to, I still don't see why they should demand that other people pay for them.  Some people are poor and happy.  There's nothing wrong with that.  It's the sense of entitlement to other people's money and wealth that is disturbing.  It's definitely a new phenomenon over the last century or two.


Now you want it to be easy too???!!!  It's hard.  It's damn hard.  But if you do it and you succeed, all the more power to you and you deserve what you get.  I wouldn't go raiding their pockets.  They're creating wealth and jobs and they've proven they know how to plan and handle money.


You see, that's what I'm saying.  Many people are happy without higher incomes.  All the more power to you.

But that begs the question:  You yourself are not too fussed about paying higher taxes, and that's fine, pay all you want; the question is this:  does that mean you have the right to impose that belief on everyone else?  In other words, do you get to demand that everyone should not be too fussed about the government taking away their money, or do you allow for the opinion that people should have the freedom to think differently and do with their money as they will?  That's where I believe the biggest issue is here:  it is an imposition of socialist beliefs on those who do not believe in socialist ideals, as though something is wrong with that, to the extent of taking away their money and property by force.

(Granted, I am using the term "socialist" very broadly to include bigger government programs that require higher taxing.)

On the flip side, the anti-socialist view (for lack of a better term) does absolutely no harm.  On one hand, people like you can pay as much in taxes as they want for the government bureaucracy to put into programs, or you can pay more to charities that have a higher degree of actually giving money to people who need charity, or you can invest your money for others to create wealth, or you can use it to create more wealth and jobs yourself.  There are more freedoms, and ultimately more wealth creation, with this model.

The key idea here is whether the government should be in charge of people's lives and money at such a granular level, or should the freedoms remain with the people?  I think there are certainly advantages to both models.  The problem I have with the socialist model is that, by definition, it completely excludes, alienates, and renders powerless those who have the more anti-socialist mindset.  This transfer of freedom and power from individual to government bothers me, even if the socialist system worked like a charm.


Exactly!  So the question is whether you should impose your beliefs on everyone else and demand that they pay more, or whether you live your happy life paying more and let them choose what to do with the money they worked hard for.

By the more socialist view, you are saying the opposite:  "No different strokes for different folks;" it's my way or the highway.

My personal opinion is that *if* we are going to embrace the idea that dreams driving the engine of progress justifies maintaining wealth disparities then we do need to do something to make sure that those who are gaining wealth are doing so by achievement rather than financial flim flam.
Mayb a simple law that anyone who is conviceted of being misleading in the promotion of financial services will face a 1 time tax of 75% of their assets... but otherwise lower taxes on the upper income.

I wouldn't have any problem with those kind of laws.  Deceipt of the public and maintenance of wealth through attrition (monopoly, etc.) is a different area of concern than simple taxation structures based on income levels that punish success.

Huge conglomerates are prevalent in the US too.  Walmart?  Bank of America?  What are the obstacles to small companies in europe that don't exist in the US?


I've not said I look down on the wealthy, I just don't particularly look up to them just because they're wealthy.  I don't consider them to be any worse than the average joe, but I don't consider them to be any better, either.  Some of them work hard to get their money, some are lazy, just like every other income level.  Some of them are great people, some are bastards, just like every income class.

I'm not necessarily opposed to having reduced business taxes (and actually the US has higher business taxes than many places in europe), but income taxes I'm less concerned about the wealthy having do without quite so much.  Yes, when they spend their money it creates jobs, but so does whatever else the money is spent on.  Taxes don't just take money and burn it, they take money and spend it.  Money spent is money spent, regardless of who's spending it.  A thousand poor people spending $100 each helps the economy about the same amount as a single rich person spending $100,000.


Yes, when less money is spent business get into trouble.  But that's true whether its you or many of your neighbors spending less.  If the government cut your taxes and (in an unusual moment of financial responsibility) also cut back on services to offset this, people would lose their jobs for that too.  And not just government employees but also the people who sell goods and services to those government employees.



Check the articles I linked.  People are more likely to end up in the same economic quartile in the US than in Nordic countries or Germany.  There is more social mobility, at least in practice, in some countries in europe than in the US.  The idea that people can't or don't take a chance and change their economic class in europe like they can in the US just isn't borne out by the data.  There is opportunity it both europe and the US, but more people seem to manage to take advantage of it in parts of europe.  I think part of the reason is that the risk of failure is smaller there (because there's more of a safety net), so people can afford to take a chance.


You're mixing your ideas here.  Money that is "wasted" in bureaucracy doesn't just disappear. It still helps the overall economy.  It might not lead to as good a product in the end, but in terms of stimulating the economy, $10 spent on a cheeseburger and a map to the cheeseburger stand is just as good as $10 spent on 2 cheeseburgers.


Bubbles came and bursted long before there was even an economic model of socialism (tulips?).  Bubbles aren't a socialist problem, they're a free market problem, which come about due to speculation.  They affect socialist countries as well, because socialist countries have free markets too, but its not fair to call them a socialist problem.  The bubble of the 90s had nothing to do with socialism (and a whole lot to do with speculation on stocks of internet companies that didn't make anything), and the housing crises wasn't caused by government policies.  That was a contributing factor, but as the links I gave above point out, the large majority of sub-prime lending was done by banks that had no obligation to follow any government desires about lending to anyone.


Wait...isn't just the kind of socialist program you're arguing against?!  Didn't that mean your wife forced some hard-working, wealth-creating rich person to bail you out?


Okay, and who pays for it?  You now seem to be saying that medicaid is good, but are arguing against socialism.


What if those "elective" (by which you seem to mean those that you don't get in an emergency room) will lower the amount you'll later have to pay when they show up in the ER asking for medicaid?


I can agree with that.  While I feel those of us who can afford to help others have an obligation to do so, I don't like people claiming someone is obligated to help them.


Well, it'd be nice if it were easy, but that wasn't my point.  My point was that it was hard, and that it shouldn't be implied that anyone who hasn't managed it is lazy or stupid, or whatever.  I don't like it when people imply that "anyone can get what I've got, if they just work for it!" implying that everyone who doesn't have as much money of them doesn't work hard, or is somehow defective.  I also don't like to see it implied that everyone who has lots of money has worked so much harder than everyone else.  But more to the point, I don't like people trying to say that there's no need to make it easier for people to get through college, or that government programs to help them do so are wrong.


That wasn't my intent.  My intent was more to point out that there are opportunities in europe too.  I dislike when americans speak as though europe has nothing going for it, no opportunities, no wealth creation, yada yada yada.  It's more of a "don't tell europe to be more like the US, when there's more social mobility in many of the countries than there is in the US."  I'm not anti-american or anything.  I AM american.  But I get tired of the euro-bashing that goes on, at least about things where the data doesn't support it.  There are plenty of things wrong in europe, and there are plenty of things wrong in the US.  But I think it's important for Americans to realize that europe is actually doing fairly well for itself in many ways.  The US isn't the best at absolutely everything, even though most americans tend to take it for granted that it is.  Say you like the American system better?  That's fine.  Some days I do too.  But don't say it's because people in europe don't have social mobility, or can't start a business, or whatever, because it's not true.


Will you apply this all the way?  Should the government not be able to tell me to pay for the military?  Subsidies to US farmers?  The CIA?  The question isn't really if the government should be able to take some of your money for the common good (unless you're way further to the right than I had thought), but rather what kinds of things its justified in taking your money to do.  It's a difference of degree, not category.


No harm to the wealthy, at least.


I sort of see it as a responsibility.  It's not just "give as much as you want" thing, it's a "everyone pull their weight" thing.  Not just a "pull if you like" position.

Now, if I were wealthy enough to retire, I could read through all your posts above and spend time responding.  But unfortunately, I have to work to earn some more money for the government to take away from me.  :)

Realistically nobody today is proposing a fully socialist system. To quote Clue, communism was a red herring.

I keep hearing here and elsewhere the people thinking people getting wealth taken to give to someone else -that hasn't earned it- is simply a poor way to consider things. How many people have their wealth due to the low income people that need certain things as human beings and can't get them? Say you own a CiCi's Pizza Franchise and make as a profit $1,000,000 with a large one in a great location just for a round number. And you pay your workers $10 an hour with no health insurance and making most work 32 hours. $13,056 a year with a paid vacation of two weeks your really nice about that and or paid sick time.

Its those people that make you that money so for me if your not providing health care out of your fat million profit its fitting the government take a share for the ones working for you. Its just common sense to me if you have people working for you and earning under 133% of the poverty line either they should get Medicaid and you pay the fine per person to cover that OR you get a proper plan and cover them. It shouldn't be that way a Christian at least would take some of their wealth to see those working for them have health care, a decent wage and accept less profit everyone still wins. I would love to see the laws changed so worker care and employment at home be obligations of company boards and CEOS on par with making the stockholders a profit. And the government could act if they put profits ahead of the workers and domestic employment.

That scenario is far to common big corporations or small businesses all use labor as cheap as they can get it.

The problem, Ruby, is that you seem to feel no hesitation to give other people responsibilities that you don't give yourself.  You think other people need to take care of you, but you don't feel the same obligation to take care of anyone else.  You feel its your right to do a job you like for very little money and live a simple life, etc, and that's great.  But you also feel that some people are obligated to not do that, just so that you're able to do so without the risk of going without healthcare.

I'm sympathetic to the idea, but when I see how entitled you feel to other people's money, effort, etc., it makes want to throw up my hands and say "forget it, let'em work for it!" just like Heath thinks we should.  You don't seem to realize that other people might like to do a low-paying job that they really like too, but if everyone did that, no one would have health care at all.

Put another way, it may well be christian to give money to the poor, but it's not christian for the poor to demand money from anyone else.  Not that whether its christian or not should really matter in the discussion of how the country provides healthcare.

The problem, I guess, is that you see an "Everyone still wins" situation, where someone else loses money and gives you healthcare.  That's not everyone still wins.  That's you win, and someone else loses.  It might still be the best way forward, because the healthcare might be worth more to you than they money they give up is the them, but it's not fair to portray it as them "winning" just because you like it.  You don't seem to realize (or perhaps just don't care) that someone else has to go without something in order for you to get healthcare.  I think it's might be a worthwhile sacrifice to make them go without so that you can get healthcare, but when I see you portraying it as not even a sacrifice, it makes me wonder if it really is worthwhile afterall.  Please realize that you're asking someone to give up something.  You're asking some people to give away a big sum of money.  Perhaps more money than you make in a year.  Treating it as a trivial thing doesn't make people feel very good about it, or eager to do it.

If we retitle Universal Healthcare as Common Defense against Viral and Bacterial Invasion does that make it more palatable?

And just for the record the idea that the wealthy have an obligation to the less fortunate is incredibly ancient. In Rome (even at the time of jesus) there was in fact welfare- every roman citizen was entitled to their quota of bread from the govenment (hence the bread portion of bread and circusses). So yes when Jesus said 'give unto ceaser' that included the support of the Roman welfare state.
In most cultures thsi obligation was tied in to social standing- a person wasn't 8really* rich ad influencial unless they could provide banquets or more contribution to community feasts than other people. This of course was before refrigeration, when there wasn't much else to do with leftover cow. In Rome the fact of governmental intercesion had the potential to weaken interpersonal ties that such festivities brought, thereby weakening society, but this was compensated for by public orgies.

So it seems to me we face a clear decision as a nation- eliminate welfare and all government based securiy nets and supports, or start the orgies.
Which is why I am a supporter of government welfare :>

Those "bread and circuses" are also believed to have been a major contributor to the fall of the Roman Empire.

Believed by some, perhaps. There's a vast number of theories as to the decline, and very few historical records to support any of them.

bread and circuses are blamed by some, but even then it is generally a rough reference to the breakdown in the moral fabric of Roman society which accompanied the changing of religious/moral framework in which the society envisioned itself. In short, christianity swelled, orgies became gradually less actual and more symbolic, and the social interconnection frayed. Like I said- social welfare requires orgies to cement society together.

Tycho its not like I have a choice about my work I can't multitask if I do more than ONE thing at a time I get flustered, my memory is not good and I'm disabled physically legally visually impaired enough to carry an Identification Cane and am in a wheelchair. I should be on SSI but I choose to work so would many disabled folks if a safety net allowed it. But no I get SSI and can't work or at least have to worry about paperwork that I can't handle or work and struggle making less money and no insurance. What benefit is it if I go on SSI etc. I'm contributing nothing to my own care and taking from society more than I ought to. If I need health care and can tend to the rest isn't that saving people that pay taxes money? I enjoy busking, I can do it and make money but its not what I used to do which as customer service and telemarketing those jobs were sharply reduced and the ones left are over my skill set and I now need accomadations they won't want to pay for. So I do what I can do to survive without begging this includes handouts I even hate taking food stampls but its keeping me going.

I think the system is sick welfare should not be ,unless UNABLE to work, a hand-out enslaving the person to the government the same way Jewish people feel charity should not replace work except in cases where its a must to do that. I think a better way to look at this is how much can this person be expected to make and does make, what is the minimal we must do as a society to see this disabled or poor person needs to be minimally comfortable including family support. And then have benefits tailored to that need. Add to that the pressing need for cheap housing what used to be called "flop housing" that is affordable.

As to my example if your talking employed workers doing meaningful work they should all get health care I don't care if its flipping burgers, making beds or digging graves its work that benefits someone higher up and then someone more higher up - its a travesty in this nation health care is denied anyone but workers like this get it the worse they make people money on their menial backs.

Tycho what is society supposed to do about health care for those that will never be more than they are or are in a reduced capacity for work, I'm not talking being a bum, I mean people that earn money just can't do more? We have as a race always had that the people slow of mind, maybe their bodies are not at even 80%, are ill or just the odd types that don't fit into the machine of industry?

That is a much better argument, RubySlippers.  I can more or less agree with all you say there.  What got my goat before was that you didn't seem to accept that there is a cost to doing as you propose.  I guess in this last one you didn't mention a cost to it, but you didn't imply there wasn't one, so that's a big improvement in my eyes.

I'm largely on board with the idea of universal health care already.  No need to convince me that it's a good idea, really.  But I also realize that there's no such thing as a free lunch, as they say.  By providing universal healthcare, someone, somewhere has to go without something they'd like to have.  I think the trade off is worth it, but it's still a trade off, and we need to be careful not to become too casual with demanding other people give up something to help someone else.

I think, again, there's a difference between:
Money to support people who are physically unable to work, due to illness, injury or age
Money to provide preventative care to people, both to increase their quality of life and to decrease their cost to the system over the long run
Money to support someone who can and normally does work, but has only recently fallen on difficult times
Money to support someone who can work, but has failed to do so, or failed to do so to a sufficient degree to support himself (regardless of cause).

I don't think anyone has argued against the first two. The third is a big issue, and needs to be carefully controlled to avoid abuse. The fourth is the one under the most contention.

I'm not ignorant of economics but I see as the issue companies that are making generous profits not giving those that make them these profits passable benefits. So if government must act to correct that in this case health care than so be it maybe Walmart will create a company to do that it might be a good thing forcing new models and innovation they did do the now common $4 - 30 day prescription drug list. They might be good doing general health care.

There are things I would like to see and for the poor Health Care Reform is key among them its by far my biggest worry, and I'd pay part of my income in a tax for that or pay what I could. I'm not a beggar the best thing the society can do for me and anyone offering help is find me places to work at Busking, pay me a dollar if you like my performing and not get in my way. Food stamps I hate getting but since I now eat well and use coupons and careful planning to stretch those dollars since your paying for them I have a duty not to waste them. That is a big peeve of mine how much junk food is covered potato chips and sugary cereals are not in my mind food. (sigh)

As for my base arguement if ,say, a dock worker at Walmart is doing his job and the company makes ample profits then why don't they just pass on some of that wealth to the worker in some basic things - a health care plan he could afford to get, a little more money in his paycheck, a stock option or other things that they should do. Sadly the law says that a company must optimize stockholder profits and the fact they have no duty to society or the worker in the law is very wanting in my opinion.

I read an article yesterday that pointed out that while most americans see the debt as a very big problem, and think that spending should be cut, the only area of spending that a majority of people thought there should be cuts was foreign aid (which makes up a very small fraction of the total budget).  Which means that people agree that there should be cuts, but as soon as the cuts are made specific, there's no real support for them.  Which is a big reason, I think, that was have a debt problem in the first place.

And that reminded me another of my hairbrained schemes that I brought up a while back, and I thought I bring it up again to see if maybe it'd generate a bit more discussion this time.

So, the basic idea was to take away the power of congress to separately set the tax level and the spending level.  Because this allows them to do the popular things (cut taxes, increase spending) without offsetting them.  In a democracy, if you let politicians give you all desert with no vegetables, no responsible politician will be be able to elected.  Even the recent crop of republicans that have swept into power, and are pushing for large cuts in programs they're opposed to haven't made the types of cuts that would be necessary to actually address the deficit (basically they're making cuts in programs they don't like, but which don't really have much impact on the budget.  The big ticket items that really need to be addressed to balance the budget are as off-limits to them as they are to the "tax and spend" liberals.  Cutting funding to planned parenthood might make some conservatives very happy, but its impact on the deficit is trivial).  What is needed is a way to enforce a balanced budget, so that politicians can't just promise tax cuts and popular spending programs while leaving the unpopular aspect of paying for them to others.

So the way it would work is this:  Congress still sets the budget as it pleases.  It can spend on whatever it likes, it can cut whatever it likes.  But the tax rate chosen by them.  Instead, the tax rate is set based on the total spending of the government last year.  The reason its for the last year is because then there's much less estimation involved.  The bills are already in, and we'll know how much we did spend, so the only question is what we have to set the tax rate at this year to equal that.  There's still the non trivial question of how well we can estimate that, but that's something we do now, and it isn't impossible to get fairly close.  Any shortages due to underestimating the necessary tax rate get tacked onto the next year, and likewise any surplus from over estimating the tax rate get tacked on to the next year too.  So if we set taxes too low one year, they'll be a bit higher next year, or if they're too high one year, they'll be a bit lower next.

Basically, our taxes this year pay for all the spending last year.  And Congress doesn't get to pick the tax rate.  Its set for them based on last years spending.  So if they want to lower taxes, they have to cut spending to do it.  And if they give us a new program, they have to pay for it.

The nice aspects of this are:
1.  The politicians can't promise us all cake and no veg.  They (and we) are forced to realistic spending and taxing.
2.  We get to see, fairly quickly, just how much it costs us (or saves us) to implement or cut a program.  This lets us know which programs/changes really are affecting our taxes.  People can cut programs they don't like, and we'll quickly be able to see if it was a finance-based decision or motivated by ideology.  People claim that tax cuts pay for themselves, and we'll be able to see within a year if its true.  And we'll be able to vote accordingly.
3.  We get rid of the debt (I'd suggest making a fraction of the debt, say 10%, need to be paid off each year).


Downsides are:
1.  Taxes would be higher, and/or services that people really like would be cut.  Right now we have low taxes and high spending, which is good for everyone as long as we can pull it off.  But enacting such a plan we'd be calling an end to the party of passing the buck to the future, which is a good idea, but not much fun.
2.  Estimating the tax rate wouldn't be an exact science, and would probably become a political battleground.  Unlike other political footballs, though, it'd be very easy to monitor:  Each year we'd be able to see if they over or underestimated the tax rate last year.
3.  It would take away some of the flexibility we currently have.  Arguably, there are times when deficit spending is a good idea, and this doesn't allow for it (or, at least you can only put off paying for one year, which is a fairly short period).


Congress could still enact different taxes to help lower the basic tax rate (e.g., could put a tax on fuel that would reduce the overall spend for the year, and thus reduce the tax rate).  Likewise, I suppose they could offer tax breaks for this or that, but they'd automatically lead to a higher tax rate overall.  You could also give subsidies, but again, they lead to a higher basic tax rate for everyone.


So far, I've only specified a "tax rate."  This could be either an income tax rate (flat tax for simplicity, and to get conservatives onboard), or a VAT.  Either of these, with a single tax rate, would be much simpler than our current tax system, and make it much more straightforward to estimate the right "rate" to balance last year's spend.

So, what do people think?

I think it would weaken congress greatly and strengthen teh judicial arm, plus it is imposible to calculate in advance what tax rate will return what revenue. IN many cases it is equally impossible to predict exactly what the expenses of some programs will be. Without the ability to incur debt as well as save revenue there is no way to effectively govern.

Yes, agreed.  In fact, that's sort of the point--congress just isn't good at financial matters, in large part because they have no real incentive to do so.  Deficit spending is very popular in the US (even, ironically, though everyone thinks they're against it), and politicians who make a real effort to balance the budget will get voted out quickly because they'll have to either raise taxes or cut popular programs (or more likely both).


I'm not sure it'd be the judicial arm, per se, but yes, it'd strengthen some body.  Perhaps something similar to the CBO.  But since any errors one year have to be accounted for the next year, it'd be hard to game the system intentionally.


To calculate it exactly, yes, but to within a good approximation its possible.  And again, since errors are passed on to the next years budget its not crucial to get it exactly right.


That's why we pay for last years spending--no need to predict what the expense will be, we only need to add up what the expense actually was.  The tax is based on what we have paid not what we will pay, so there's no need for estimation for that half of things.


I think that might be an overly strong way of phrasing it, but I do agree that that's the biggest problem with the system.  To be clear, this system in no way limits what congress can spend.  Their hands are not tied in anyway on spending, so they will be entirely able to react to any situation.  They may, however, be forced to raise taxes at a time when its not wise to do so (in a recession, say), which is a potential problem.  The trouble is, how can we allow deficit spending when it's a good idea, but prevent it when its not?  This system lets them put off the pain of paying for spending for at most one year, which may not be long enough.  But letting them put it off for longer lets them off the hook for irresponsible behavior.  Is there a way to get the best of both worlds, rather than the worst of both?

There are three branches, teh executive, the legislative, and the judicial. If we tie the hands of teh legislative in this way then ultimately it willbe the judicial branch which ules as to what that means in real terms.
Also the 'lame duck' sessions would become a real problem as an outgoing congress could spend an incoming congress into losing the next election: for example
in 2012 assuming teh Democrats make a sweep teh republicans coudl then load up their favorite spening at teh end session f 2012. in 2012 there is then an increase in spending, but teh increase in taxes occurs in 2013 (under the new Democrats). In 2013 the tax pinch hasn't been felt yet so cutting the programs would be unpopular. Then the tax pinch comes and people feel it in time to get riled up for the 2014 election cycle. The democrats then are in the hard position of trying to cut programs in 2014 while campaigning, knowing that the tax relief won't be felt until 2015, where if the Republicans win back the house (in large part due to the disaster they themselves created) they will be the ones likely to benefit from the responsible actions of teh democrats (parties were chosen based on cycling from the current situation, not based on any particular platform), but if the democrats lose they could then pull the same trick and raise their own spending late in the session.

It sounds to me like the problem is a lack of fiscal capability within the body elected to handle fiscal matters, so the solution wuld be to find a way to ensure they will be copetant and held accountable rather than trying to redistribute that responsibility until nobody actually owns it. Perhaps a requiremnet of a college or higher level degree enacted at the state level... possibly with some limitations as to which degrees would be allowed to run for office (personally I favor history ad economics)

True, though if we keep the law simple enough, the judicial branch shouldn't have much to say about it.


This is true, but I'd offer these points:
1.  Since elections are on two year cycles, and the budgets would be on 1 year cycles, it'd be harder for the lame duck congress to totally ruin things.  By the time election year comes around, the tax rate would be based on the actions of the current congress, not the last.  The first year of a congress, the tax rates would be based on the previous congress' actions, true, but the taxes during the election year would be based on their own.
2.  Spending increases are often popular.  So while an outgoing congress might try to burden the next congress with a year of high taxes, they might also be giving them the benefits of high spending.  Spending which can be done within the lame duck period itself would work for them, but anything that takes longer than a couple of months to reap political benefit would help the next congress.
3.  This system would make it much, much easier to properly lay blame/credit for the current tax rate, because it would be entirely based on spending that's already taken place (ie, there'd be no guess work in it).  It'd be fairly trivial to make a website that said "your current tax rate is due to the following spending:  X% military spending, Y% healthcare, Z% social security, etc."  It wouldn't be all that hard to even apply a name to each fraction, based on which senator sponsored the bill for that spending, and the year it was enacted.  Thus it'd be much easier for the people to see where there taxes are really going, and harder for politicians to blame others for taxes, or take credit for cuts that had no real effect on the tax rate.


I'd say it's not ability that's lacking, but motivation.  Right now, there's no real incentive for a politician to balance the budget, because the american voters don't support the actions necessary to do it.  You can run an economic genius for congress, but if he tells the people he's going to raise taxes and cut spending, he'll be laughed of the stage.  Politicians give us huge deficits because we demand low taxes and big spending.  They're just giving us what we ask for.


I think the fraction of people in congress without college degrees is pretty small.  The largest field that most of them come from is law, if I'm not mistaken.  It's not a problem of education, I'd argue, as we have some pretty well educated people in congress already.  It's the problem of treating the tax rate as a separate issue from the spending rate that's causing us problems.  It's easier to get majority support for a tax cut or a new program.  It's much, much harder to get a majority behind paying for either of those.

On having a degree there is no reasona common farmer with a high school education should be a bad legislator in fact many early elected officials were either homeschooled or had a limited education - Daniel Boone comes to mind. But by all accounts he did a decent job and then some working the system then it shouldn't have been all the different over now. A man or woman who serves in office and does his best by those who elected him or her is a good thing over special interests that is their job.

As for the National Debt I'd just keep running it up until no one will give us credit then default at that point we ration in the US like WWII, take care of our citizens booting out anyone not one and seal the borders pointing our nukes outward. If they want to collect let them try. And some nations like China need our food we can trade that and other things. In the UN we have a permanent seat no one can try much there we can veto override any measures we like. It would teach them for giving us all that money for so long.

?!?!?!?
I am struggling to come up with ways to respond to this that are within the rules.  Let me just say that this idea is:

1.  totally immoral
2.  totally irresponsible
3.  would leave the country in ruins