A plan to Balance the Federal Budget and Restore the Economy

[Truth Detector]

(1) End all subsidies

(2) Eliminate the Department of Housing and Urban Development; the Department of Education; eliminate the Department of Labor; eliminate the Department of Energy; eliminate the Department of Labor.

(3) Pass a balanced budget amendment.

(4) Eliminate the current tax code and supplant it with a consumption tax (Fair Tax). This would also cause a significant reduction in the size of the IRS and Congressional staffing levels.

(5) Hold current spending levels at $3 trillion for the next five years, or until the deficit is completely eliminated.

(6) Instutute term limits on Congress: Three terms for House members and Two terms for the Senate.

By implementing these plans, the deficit would evaporate in 3 to 5 years and the economy would be in full recovery above and beyond previous levels.

Unfortunately, the leftist media would attack anyone proposing such initiatives in their typical Marxist clamor for the poor, and the politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle would resist it with all their might because it reduces their power and ability to buy votes.

In addition, as President I would campaign for electoral vote reform in all the states so that there would no longer be a winner take all, but replace it with an allocated system giving voters more of a say in elections and making States that have been completely ignored in the current system relevant again.

The days of watching Ohio, Florida and Virginia decide all our candidates has become old and tiring.

 

[The Dude]

Zero chance
Millions love the code

 

[Litmus]

So no corporations benefit from subsidies? Im afraid it's not only "lefties" that would oppose the plan.

 

[Dantès]

(1) End all subsidies

(2) Eliminate the Department of Housing and Urban Development; the Department of Education; eliminate the Department of Labor; eliminate the Department of Energy; eliminate the Department of Labor.

(3) Pass a balanced budget amendment.

(4) Eliminate the current tax code and supplant it with a consumption tax (Fair Tax). This would also cause a significant reduction in the size of the IRS and Congressional staffing levels.

(5) Hold current spending levels at $3 trillion for the next five years, or until the deficit is completely eliminated.

(6) Instutute term limits on Congress: Three terms for House members and Two terms for the Senate.

By implementing these plans, the deficit would evaporate in 3 to 5 years and the economy would be in full recovery above and beyond previous levels.

Unfortunately, the leftist media would attack anyone proposing such initiatives in their typical Marxist clamor for the poor, and the politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle would resist it with all their might because it reduces their power and ability to buy votes.

In addition, as President I would campaign for electoral vote reform in all the states so that there would no longer be a winner take all, but replace it with an allocated system giving voters more of a say in elections and making States that have been completely ignored in the current system relevant again.

The days of watching Ohio, Florida and Virginia decide all our candidates has become old and tiring.

And this would all have happened if Ron Paul were president. But he ain't. And you know why? Because he was a simple-minded imbecile who nearly everyone saw for the idiot that he was. Except for some really fucking stupid people who think that fetuses should have property rights and that instituting term limits will make the deficit "evaporate." I guess anyone who could post this doesn't know much about what evaporation is or what it refers to! And people on the right think I am a dimwit. Wow! At least I know what the term "evaporation" refers to.

 

[Big Money]

And this would all have happened if Ron Paul were president. But he ain't. And you know why? Because he was a simple-minded imbecile who nearly everyone saw for the idiot that he was. Except for some really fucking stupid people who think that fetuses should have property rights and that instituting term limits will make the deficit "evaporate." I guess anyone who could post this doesn't know much about what evaporation is or what it refers to! And people on the right think I am a dimwit. Wow! At least I know what the term "evaporation" refers to.

Hilarious.

 

[Truth Detector]

And this would all have happened if Ron Paul were president. But he ain't.

No it would not have dimwit; because a President alone cannot make such changes. It has to come from the Congress and through the demands of the public.

And you know why? Because he was a simple-minded imbecile who nearly everyone saw for the idiot that he was.

I am amused that dimwits like you think Ron is a simple minded imbecile, simply because you say so without any facts, and Obama is not?

You're truly a fascinatingly ignorant dimwit at that.

Except for some really fucking stupid people who think that fetuses should have property rights and that instituting term limits will make the deficit "evaporate." I guess anyone who could post this doesn't know much about what evaporation is or what it refers to! And people on the right think I am a dimwit. Wow! At least I know what the term "evaporation" refers to.

People on the right do not "think" you are a dimwit; they are made painfully aware of it every time you post. Evaporation? You really are THAT stupid.

So stupid in fact, that you can't even distinguish the topic of any thread from your tired rabid leftist canards.

So after your off topic dimwitted rant; the conclusion that can be made is that you like the status quo…as long as YOUR deciders are in power.

Dimwit.

 

[Big Money]

How come Bijou in Dantès Panties doesn't know how laws are made?

 

[The Dude]

Tea partiers against the tax code!
They are too poor and stupid to use it properly.

 

[Truth Detector]

So no corporations benefit from subsidies? Im afraid it's not only "lefties" that would oppose the plan.

Another clueless commentary from the dimwit class; where would corporations get any special treatment under a Fair Tax?

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Are you going to eliminate the Dept of Labor twice?

Several of those depts are needed. Obviously education is something the gov't has a vested interest in. Also, eliminating the dept of Labor would eliminate OSHA. Now you may imagine corporations have a heart of gold and will take care of their people, but the facts show a very different reality.

 

[Truth Detector]

Are you going to eliminate the Dept of Labor twice?

You never made a mistake; in your life?

Several of those depts are needed.

Please show me where they are needed based on the Constitutional duties of the Federal Government.

Obviously education is something the gov't has a vested interest in.

Yes it is; but at the State level, not the Federal. Again, please show me where it is a Federal responsibility in the Constitution.

Also, eliminating the dept of Labor would eliminate OSHA.

No it would not; it would only eliminate it at the Federal level and put it properly within the States. Please show me where it is the Constitutional duty of the Fed to mandate worker safety?

Now you may imagine corporations have a heart of gold and will take care of their people, but the facts show a very different reality.

Only if you want to imagine that corporations are stupid enough to believe that killing their employees and customers is a way to make profits. This is why we have LAWS against such things. OSHA has never prevented a death in the workplace; they cannot monitor every action on the part of individuals and companies and it is a really dimwitted premise that they can.

 

[Big Money]

Obviously education is something the gov't has a vested interest in.

Obviously.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Only if you want to imagine that corporations are stupid enough to believe that killing their employees and customers is a way to make profits. This is why we have LAWS against such things. OSHA has never prevented a death in the workplace; they cannot monitor every action on the part of individuals and companies and it is a really dimwitted premise that they can.

The threat of fines and penalties have kept corporations following safety rules better than their own compassion. If they think they can increase profits by cutting corners on worker safety, they will. To argue otherwise is not only dimwitted, but ignores the facts and history.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Obviously.

If that was all you got from your education, you might have a point.

Actually, that you see the cartoon above as representative of education explains a lot about you.

 

[Big Money]

The threat of fines and penalties have kept corporations following safety rules better than their own compassion.

Cite?

 

[Big Money]

If that was all you got from your education, you might have a point. Actually, that you see the cartoon above as representative of education explains a lot about you.

Who said I see it as "representative of education" or that it was "all I got from" my education?

Link up.

 

[Truth Detector]

The threat of fines and penalties have kept corporations following safety rules better than their own compassion.

I’m going to say that you are completely wrong; but you can provide a credible link that supports your claims if you like.

What has kept corporations in the vanguard of safety has been their insurance carriers and the knowledge that killing employees and customers is very bad for your bottom line.

If they think they can increase profits by cutting corners on worker safety, they will.

This is a patently false claim and I challenge you to find a shred of credible proof to support it. Dead workers are bad for business and for one's insurance carrier.

]To argue otherwise is not only dimwitted, but ignores the facts and history.

This coming from someone talking out of his ass with nothing more substantive than "because you say so;" ironic.

Once again; please support your nitwit claims with something substantive and show how companies can make more money by killing their workers and customers; such arguments are painfully ignorant, willfully stupid and epic in ignorance.

Now back to the question I asked before which you are desperately deflecting and avoiding; where is it the Constitutional duty of the Fed to provide for education, housing and worker safety within the States?

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Cite?

Since OSHA was created the workplace deaths and serious injuries have dropped every year.

Or even better, whenever a high profile accident results in deaths, part of the news story is usually the OSHA fines they had paid. In other words, they ignored the regulations and paid fines but still didn't take worker safety seriously.

 

[Big Money]

Since OSHA was created the workplace deaths and serious injuries have dropped every year.

Cite.

Then get ready to prove they wouldn't have dropped anyway, without OSHA.

Or even better, whenever a high profile accident results in deaths, part of the news story is usually the OSHA fines they had paid. In other words, they ignored the regulations and paid fines but still didn't take worker safety seriously.

So you say.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Cite.

Then get ready to prove they wouldn't have dropped anyway, without OSHA.



So you say.

Right, because sweatshops were closed and the horrible conditions in coal mines were remedied because the companies wanted to take care oft heir workers. lol

I'll find examples when I have some time. Busy evening tonight.