Obama Announces Re-election Bid

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

F&B, I said nothing about killing R&D but gutting it like a fish is a good place to start. There is a vast difference between not researching and developing new technologies and letting R&D be driven by political forces. There is so much fraud, waste, and abuse in military R&D it would make an Enron executive blush.

By my observation, something like only one in four DoD contracts actually work. However only an Enron executive (or business school graduate) would solve problems by cutting spending. That never addresses the problem. The problem is directly traceable to those who authorize spending by coming from the business schools rather than from where the work gets done.

The problem is not too much money. The problem are too many experts without fundamental knowledge making decisions. That results in more layers of bureaucracy and more waste. The solution was well defined by W E Deming. It starts by addressing the only reason for so many DoD contracts that have no purpose. Management.

Only the most naive solve problems by using cost controls. Cost controls always increase costs. Solution always come from those who know how the work gets done. But as business school types promote more of their own, then costs increase.

No different than in GM where top management could not even drive a car. So of course Rick Wagoner said GM's only problem was the economy. He was just as dumb as the executives who approve DoD R&D without even a science degree.

Need we again cite Carly Fiorina as the only reason for HP's problems back then? A history major from Stamford and a salesman for Lucent. Therefore she too would only harm an R&D company. And then in the meeting I attended, she said she would solve these problems with better costs controls and a new accounting system. Could she be any dumber? Her solution was also costs controls. Solve problems by controlling spending rather than learn about the product.

How to fix our problems? Every Senator and Congressman must fill out his own tax returns by hand and without assistance. Currently tax accountants do it for them because they do not even understand the tax laws they have created. Just like those who approve DoD spending, Rick Wagoner, and Carly Fiorina. Always go after the problem. Not its symptoms (ie cash flow).

[Pete Zicato]

Originally Posted by tw

However only an Enron executive (or business school graduate) would solve problems by cutting spending. That never addresses the problem.

Unless the problem is overspending.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by Pete Zicato

Unless the problem is overspending.

extremist

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by lookout123

I'm a strong proponent for killing deductions. If you kill the ascending tax rate plan there is no need/room for deductions.
As I said I believe everyone should pay something. I don't even believe 10% on the first $50-60K is necessary. 1% is a symbolic gesture that everyone pays their share. 20-25-30%... I don't really care what it is, so long as there aren't loopholes and shelters the money will come in. The mega rich have massive tax games to avoid paying at their current marginal rates and they already payin excess of 70% of every tax dollar collected. Eliminate the shell game, lower the rate, and actually collect more money.

Ah. there's the rub.

Proposals like the flat tax, Ryan's budget or yours assume they will result in more money coming into the treasury.

But they are based on economic growth assumptions that the incentives will be so great for consumers and businesses to spend and invest that the economy will grow faster and higher than any time in recent history, at rates of 7% or more annually. I think we've only seen a 7% growth rate once in the last 30-40 years.

Reagan's former budget director recently described it as Alice in Wonderland economic assumptions.

Oh and everyone does pay something into the federal treasury, in the form of federal excise taxes (eg gas tax) and payroll taxes (FICA), in which those with wages under $100K pay a higher percentage than those over $100K (since payroll taxes are only on the first $100K).

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

Ah. there's the rub.

Proposals like the flat tax, Ryan's budget or yours assume they will result in more money coming into the treasury.

But they are based on economic growth assumptions that the incentives will be so great for consumers and businesses to spend and invest that the economy will grow faster and higher than any time in recent history, at rates of 7% or more annually. I think we've only seen a 7% growth rate once in the last 30-40 years.

Reagan's former budget director recently described it as Alice in Wonderland economic assumptions.

Oh and everyone does pay something into the federal treasury, in the form of federal excise taxes (eg gas tax) and payroll taxes (FICA), in which those with wages under $100K pay a higher percentage than those over $100K (since payroll taxes are only on the first $100K).

Either you believe the very wealthy are paying taxes at 35%+ right now or you don't. If you don't then by eliminating the loopholes the treasury must receive more money. If they are paying 35% I'd like to quit hearing about the very wealthy paying nothing.

Personally, I believe the very wealthy pay significantly less than 35% because they have shelters and loopholes. Therefore, I believe 1% on every dollar up to $X0,000 and 25/35/39?% on every dollar over MUST generate more income than 0%on the first $40-50K and Less than 39 on everything over, regardless of the growth rate of the economy.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Either you believe the very wealthy are paying taxes at 35%+ right now or you don't. If you don't then by eliminating the loopholes the treasury must receive more money. If they are paying 35% I'd like to quit hearing about the very wealthy paying nothing.

Personally, I believe the very wealthy pay significantly less than 35% because they have shelters and loopholes. Therefore, I believe 1% on every dollar up to $X0,000 and 25/35/39?% on every dollar over MUST generate more income than 0%on the first $40-50K and Less than 39 on everything over, regardless of the growth rate of the economy.

The real tax rate (all state/federal taxes) for the top taxpayers is in the low 30% range....the lowest they have paid in 50 years.

I've not seen any example where your math works in real dollars in a real economy.

[Pete Zicato]

How about corporations, lookout?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by lookout123

As I've described in the past, my view on a flat tax isn't really flat but I truly believe 1% on every single dollar up to $50-60K and 20%(ish) on every dollar of personal income over with no deductions beyond first home mortgage interest would solve many problems.

Originally Posted by lookout123

I don't even believe 10% on the first $50-60K is necessary. 1% is a symbolic gesture that everyone pays their share. 20-25-30%... I don't really care what it is,

I think you need to be specific. How much income and what tax rate, specifically?

[lookout123]

You might notice I didn't say biggest or most expensive or anything at all about forms of currency. I said I believe each of our individual services should be the strongest of its type. I also said it should and could be done with much less cost.

Would you care to address that or do you want to educate us on the 70 hp/L engine for awhile?

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Would you care to address that or do you want to educate us on the 70 hp/L engine for awhile?

So you want this to be about your intelligence. I have no problem discussing you and UG as the same intellectual micro-brains. You make it so easy.

You can stop being a scumbag now because numbers such as the 70 Hp/l engine were too complicated for you. Best you stop the cheapshot and deal with facts as posted.

Ridiculous is a military where the world's largest Air Force is the US Air Force. And the world's second largest Air Force is the US Navy. At what point do our allies start contributing to world stability? We have no business being the world's only policeman. And that is exactly what the Project for a New American Century (and the George Jr administration) wants. After all, we must protect 'our' oil in Iraq.

Only those who love excessive military and who invent enemies need a military that massive. Only dying empires maintain a military that excessive.

The question is about where we waste our resources. Two perfectly ideal example are the US military and the paper dollar bill. Perfect examples because extremists do not want to address these major problems.

As DanaC said:

The trouble is, as far as I can see, that as soon as you start trying to zero in on waste and unnecessary expenditure, vested interests in some service areas are so powerful that the spotlight just kind of glides over them ...

That problem exists only when Congress is dominated by extremists rather than pragmatists. When the political agenda is more important than the nation.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by tw

So you want this to be about your intelligence. I have no problem discussing you and UG as the same intellectual micro-brains. You make it so easy.

You can stop being a scumbag now because numbers such as the 70 Hp/l engine were too complicated for you. Best you stop the cheapshot and deal with facts as posted.

For the record, Spexx - this is the type of post that interferes with discussion on the issues.

Ridiculous is a military where the world's largest Air Force is the US Air Force. And the world's second largest Air Force is the US Navy. At what point do our allies start contributing to world stability? We have no business being the world's only policeman. And that is exactly what the Project for a New American Century (and the George Jr administration) wants. After all, we must protect 'our' oil in Iraq.

Only those who love excessive military and who invent enemies need a military that massive. Only dying empires maintain a military that excessive.

The question is about where we waste our resources. Two perfectly ideal example are the US military and the paper dollar bill. Perfect examples because extremists do not want to address these major problems.

OK, now can you find in this thread where I said we should have the 2 largest air forces in the world? Next can you find in this thread where I've said we should be the world's police force? After you're done with that can you find where I've said it is our job to maintain global stability?

When the political agenda is more important than the nation.

For bonus points I'd like you to cite something that would make you believe I disagree with this.

I'll wait.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by lookout123

For the record, Spexx - this is the type of post that interferes with discussion on the issues.

Dude, what do expect when you post something like:

Originally Posted by lookout123

Would you care to address that or do you want to educate us on the 70 hp/L engine for awhile?

Again: the above statement is the kind of comment that starts a flame war. It's your style. You can't seem to help yourself. Someone posts some benign comment, and there you are with a snide

Originally Posted by lookout123

I'll wait.

You recently pointed the finger at me for causing the problems. Look at yourself.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Dude, what do expect when you post something like:

Again: the above statement is the kind of comment that starts a flame war. It's your style. You can't seem to help yourself. Someone posts some benign comment, and there you are with a snide



You recently pointed the finger at me for causing the problems. Look at yourself.

And there you go with your selective reading again. I would rather have a discussion about the issue. You'll note that TW is discussing the issue rather than insulting the other poster now. With that I'll walk away from what will be pointless bickering with you.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by lookout123

With that I'll walk away from what will be pointless bickering with you.

Wait - I see a pattern here. Someone points out that Lookout might be the problem around here... and he posts that the discussion is over.

[lookout123]

Again, that's a good reply to a statement I didn't make. Please point to the part where I said cutting costs was the solution? Cutting costs would be a welcome and needed byproduct of cutting out the fraud, waste, and abuse in the R&D process. You're so quick to regurgitate your factoids that you don't even stop to contemplate whether you do in fact disagree with a post.