US Federal Budget 2012

So, as most of you probably already know, The White House just dropped their guidelines on what they think the US Federal Budget should look like in the coming years.

The gist of it:

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 27, 2011 (Associated Press) - The core pillars of America's fiscal policy over the next three years involve shrinking the ratio of federal spending to GDP, cutting the deficit, and bringing down the public debt-to-GDP ratio—all of which were laid out during today's session at The White House where the economic and fiscal policy guidelines for the 2012–2014 period were officially approved.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/fiscal_policy_guidelines_2014

On paper, these guidelines actually seem decent enough...

But what I'm really chewing on is how we’d actually pull this off effectively.

1.) Cutting federal spending could be easiest if we went through layoffs (within the civil service) or by selling off state assets (think ExxonMobil, Kraft Heinz... things like that).

2.) We could also trim the budget through austerity measures—basically taking a hard inventory of government assets and personnel—and finding ways to distribute work more efficiently.

3.) Or, you know, we could just boost production and grow the GDP... which is the classic approach.

Here is the breakdown for the 2011 budget: http://www.treasury.gov/budget-2011

I'm curious, though—if you were calling the shots, what changes would you actually make?

From what I can see, none of the political parties are offering anything remotely concrete... so I'd love to hear your thoughts.

The whole thing is pure bullshit.

According to the official projections, federal revenue for the next fiscal year is supposed to climb by 5 percent to $112.8 billion. Looking further ahead, they’re banking on growth of 6.4 percent per year—hitting $120 billion in 2013 and $127.6 billion in 2014.

It’s the same old story: just a wishlist of impossible dreams. Forecasting annual revenue growth at 5 or 6 percent is massive; frankly, I’d call it delusional. Since I'm assuming these projected revenues aren't coming from planned tax hikes, they must be betting on a surge in consumer spending, employment, and corporate profits to drive up tax receipts. But based on what? 🙂

The real issue with the budget isn't the revenue side, it's the spending. But obviously, The White House has no intention of cutting costs (shocking, I know). Instead, they're planning for more spending, essentially hoping that revenue will magically grow fast enough to catch up with expenses and shrink the deficit on its own.
They keep tossing GDP growth rates around like they're candy. The first quarter of this year was in the red, and while the second quarter saw a meager 0.8% bump, The White House refuses to budge, still insisting on a 1.5% growth rate for the year. 😁

Mark Campbell5 said:So, as most of you probably already know, The White House just dropped their guidelines on what they think the US Federal Budget should look like in the coming years.

The gist of it:

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 27, 2011 (Associated Press) - The core pillars of America's fiscal policy over the next three years involve shrinking the ratio of federal spending to GDP, cutting the deficit, and bringing down the public debt-to-GDP ratio—all of which were laid out during today's session at The White House where the economic and fiscal policy guidelines for the 2012–2014 period were officially approved.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/fiscal_policy_guidelines_2014

On paper, these guidelines actually seem decent enough...

But what I'm really chewing on is how we’d actually pull this off effectively.

1.) Cutting federal spending could be easiest if we went through layoffs (within the civil service) or by selling off state assets (think ExxonMobil, Kraft Heinz... things like that).

2.) We could also trim the budget through austerity measures—basically taking a hard inventory of government assets and personnel—and finding ways to distribute work more efficiently.

3.) Or, you know, we could just boost production and grow the GDP... which is the classic approach.

Here is the breakdown for the 2011 budget: http://www.treasury.gov/budget-2011

I'm curious, though—if you were calling the shots, what changes would you actually make?

From what I can see, none of the political parties are offering anything remotely concrete... so I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Why not just sell off USA Hockey, HAC, Amtrak, the US Army, the US Navy, or Duke Energy? Or at least the ones that are losing money?

Zek0slav said:It’s because of people like Kerefek! 🙂

🙂
The government would actually bring in more revenue if they just sold those companies off and lived off the profits instead of running them like this. Or maybe they wouldn't. 🤷
As it stands, you can't help but wonder if the state is just keeping them to hand out jobs to cronies and secure votes.

Guidelines?
About what?
Something that would be useful regardless of the situation!
😂

Emily Fox2 said:🙂
The government would actually bring in more revenue if they just sold those companies off and lived off the profits instead of running them like this. Or maybe they wouldn't. 🤷
As it stands, you can't help but wonder if the state is just keeping them to hand out jobs to cronies and secure votes.

Go ahead—give me one example of a nation where every single strategic industry is handed over to foreign capital without the whole thing turning into a complete circus.
Granting foreign interests a monopoly over oil, water, electricity, and transportation is essentially national suicide. We’ve already sold off our banks, and now we’re dealing with the fallout—sky-high interest rates and a White House that's effectively toothless in that sector. We handed our oil interests over to the Canadians, and once they achieve total control, we'll see the fallout there too, via crippling raw material costs—something we're already witnessing with General Mills and Dow Chemical. If we sell off the power grid, the highways, and the water supply... well, at that point, we barely have a sovereign nation left.

I don't even know where to start with this one—is anyone else seeing this? It feels like we’re just drifting through these endless cycles without any real sense of direction. You look at the news, you look at what's happening on the streets, and it's all just... noise. Honestly, does anyone actually have a handle on things, or are we all just pretending? It’s getting harder to tell the difference between actual progress and just moving the deck chairs around on the Titanic. Just my two cents, I guess. kaže:
Paper is pure, unadulterated bullshit.

That’s exactly where my head is at—which is why I brought this topic up in the first place. If we actually sit down and try to build something better instead of just spinning our wheels, wouldn't that be a start?

Or do you honestly think there’s some genius out there right now sitting around with a better way to structure the US Federal Budget? I mean, come on—does anyone actually believe a "perfect" plan is just waiting to be discovered in some basement in D.C.?

It seems to me like everyone is just circling the same drain—just spinning their wheels to maintain a status quo that’s already on life support. I mean, honestly, does anyone actually see what's coming? With the way the global economy is looking right now, this whole setup is basically a house of cards waiting for a stiff breeze. It’s all just going to fall apart anyway, so why are we all acting like things are stable?

Let’s try building a budget together... you know, like how those folks in Iceland sat down and drafted their own constitution.

So, here it is. This is how it goes.

Look, if you’ve actually got a better idea—or even if you just see someone else out there who could probably do a much better job than whatever we're looking at right now—please, for the love of everything, just speak up. Seriously.

[No content provided to rewrite.]

I don't know if it was just me, or if everyone else felt that weird shift in the air—that sense that things were starting to get a little... intense? It’s like when you’re driving through a quiet part of the Midwest and suddenly you realize the horizon looks a bit too heavy, you know? Just a feeling. Anyway, I was thinking about how much everything changes when the wind shifts. One minute you're coasting, and the next, you're wondering where the hell the road went. Is it just me, or does life always seem to work that way? Just constant, unpredictable pivots. kaže: Based on what the latest projections in the guidelines are showing—if you actually believe them—it looks like we’re supposedly headed for a bump in federal budget revenue next year. Should we be celebrating? Probably not. It's just one of those "on paper" things that always seems to shift once reality actually hits the fan. Just five percent? Seriously? That's it? I mean, you’re telling me we're looking at a measly five percent margin here—is that even worth the paperwork? It feels like we're rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic at this point, doesn't it? Honestly, I could probably make more off a lemonade stand in a suburban cul-de-sac if I actually put in the effort. Five percent... give me a break.So, looking at the numbers—we’re talking about an $112.8 billion US Federal Budget—and if you actually sit down and crunch the projections for the next two years... well, what exactly are we expecting to see? It's a massive figure, isn't it? One has to wonder where it all goes. So, they're claiming growth at 6.4 percent now? Honestly, where does this number even come from? It feels like one of those optimistic projections you see right before a massive reality check hits—kind of like when people thought the housing market was invincible back in the day. Is it actually sustainable, or just more creative accounting by the folks in Washington, D.C.? I mean, you have to wonder who's really feeling that bump. It’s easy to throw around percentages in a press release, but until it actually trickles down to the rest of us, it's all just noise, isn't it?So, looking back at those numbers—it jumped from around $120 billion in 2013 up to $127.6 billion in 2014. Just a little bit of an uptick, right? Not exactly breaking the bank, but definitely moving the needle. It’s the same old story, isn't it? Just another list of total pipe dreams. I mean, looking at these targets—aiming for revenue growth north of 5 or even 6 percent every single year—is just wild. Honestly? Those numbers are completely delusional.

It’s achievable... just not through the mess they're making of it right now.

[No input provided to rewrite.]

I don't even know where to start with this one—it’s just one of those things that makes you sit back and wonder if anyone is actually paying attention. You look at the way things are moving, the sheer chaos of it all, and you have to ask: are we really just going to let this ride? It feels like we're circling the drain of some massive, avoidable mess. Honestly, it's almost impressive how consistently we manage to trip over our own feet. Is it incompetence, or just a collective shrug at this point? Who knows. But hey, that's just my two cents. kaže: So, I’m assuming your projected revenue isn't just some magical byproduct of planned tax hikes—because, let's be real, that's a tough sell. Instead, you're clearly banking on a massive surge in consumer spending, higher employment rates, and corporate profits all kicking in at once to drive up tax receipts. It's a bold way to balance the books, I guess. But really... what exactly is supposed to trigger all of that? 🙂

I mean, you’d think we’d need some massive, complex blueprint to figure this out... but honestly? It’s pretty straightforward. If you actually want to see growth in spending, employment, and profit—you just increase production. It’s not exactly rocket science, right?

So, look, we basically need to start manufacturing something... and honestly? The silver lining here is that since we aren't actually producing anything right now, the entire field is wide open. We have a totally blank slate to work with—which is a pretty wild position to be in, don't you think?

[No content provided to rewrite]

I don't know about you, but I can't help feeling like we're all just staring at different colored flags, waiting for someone to tell us which one actually matters. It’s funny, isn't it? How much weight we put on a bit of fabric—symbols, borders, identities—when most of the time, it feels like we're just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. You see people getting worked up over one thing, then immediately pivoting to something completely unrelated, and you have to wonder... are we even looking at the same map? Or are we all just waving our own little banners in the dark, hoping someone notices? kaže: The fundamental issue with the budget isn't actually about how much money is coming in—it’s all about where it’s going. But, let's be real here—the spending side clearly has zero intention of scaling back (shocking, I know)—and instead, they're actually planning for even more growth. It’s like they're just sitting around hoping that revenues will magically decide to step up their game and catch up to those soaring expenses, just to shrink the deficit on its own. Right. Because that's definitely how math works, isn't it?

You could probably argue that whoever drafted the US Federal Budget 2012 clearly hasn't spent a single second looking at how things actually work on the ground. I mean, I'm with you there... which is exactly why I think someone else should be handling the budget—maybe a group of us who actually understand the real situation here.

banderas;35607270
They keep tossing GDP growth rates around like they're nothing. We saw negative numbers in the first quarter said:

🤣

Oh, of course they expect that... because expectations and reality aren't exactly the same thing, are they?

Let’s stick to talking about what’s actually happening in the real world.

I don't even know where to start with this one—it's just... wow. Honestly, looking at the way things are moving, you have to wonder if anyone in charge actually has a plan, or if they're all just winging it and hoping for the best? It feels like we're constantly being blindsided by these sudden shifts in policy that nobody saw coming, even though the warning signs were practically screaming at us from the rooftops. Does anyone else get that feeling? Like we're just watching a slow-motion train wreck while everyone pretends everything is perfectly fine? It’s exhausting, really. Just one thing after another, and yet, somehow, we're expected to act surprised every single time.

Emily Fox2 said:Why not just sell off USA Hockey, HAC, Amtrak, the US Army, the US Navy, or Duke Energy? Or at least the ones that are losing money?

My response...

briskdrifter3 said:Honestly, why don't we just sell the whole damn country? Just put the entire nation up for auction and call it a day. I mean, really think about it—wouldn't that be easier than dealing with all this?
Cut the nonsense.

It’s the same old song and dance, isn't it? That classic, tired argument people love to recycle—just sell everything off to foreign investors and hope we somehow make a killing on the tax revenue. In theory, sure, it sounds like a brilliant master plan, but we all know how that usually plays out.

Here’s how things actually play out in the real world:

Emily Fox2 said:🙂
The government would actually bring in more revenue if they just sold those companies off and lived off the profits instead of running them like this. Or maybe they wouldn't. 🤷
As it stands, you can't help but wonder if the state is just keeping them to hand out jobs to cronies and secure votes.

So, I was sitting around wondering—and honestly, don't judge me for overthinking this one—just how much of a cut does the government actually take from the banks? You know, that specific tax hit they deal with? It’s one of those things that sounds simple until you start digging into the fine print of the tax code, and then suddenly you're three hours deep into a rabbit hole of fiscal policy. Does anyone actually have a straight answer on this, or is it all just a giant shell game played by the big players in D.C.?

0%

So, I was sitting here wondering—just a random thought that popped into my head while staring at my coffee—how much does the government actually rake in from bank taxes? You know, those little fees and levies tucked away in the fine print that seem to hit everyone eventually? It makes you wonder where all that cash actually goes once it leaves our accounts. Is it just disappearing into some bureaucratic void, or is there a clear line item for it somewhere in the US Federal Budget? Honestly, who even knows anymore?

So, earnings are sitting at exactly zero percent. Zero. Zilch. Nada. You ever just sit back and stare at the numbers until they start looking like a bad joke? It’s one of those moments where you wonder if the math is even working anymore—or if we’re all just participating in some massive, unintentional social experiment. Is it even worth checking the balance at this point, or should I just go ahead and embrace the void?

So, who actually footed the bill for those bank bailouts? Honestly, you have to wonder who’s really picking up the tab when the big guys stumble. Was it the taxpayers? The folks just trying to get through the week? It’s one of those questions that makes you want to sit down with a very large drink and just stare at a wall for a while.

The government—using our money, mind you.

So, basically, we bailed out the banks using our own damn money—handing it right back to the bankers who are already raking it in—while the rest of us, and the government for that matter, don't see a single cent of profit from the deal. Makes sense, right?

Look, let’s get one thing straight—the government isn't some damn social services agency tasked with babysitting the profits of big-bank executives... Is that really where we are now? Since when did the taxpayers become a safety net for Wall Street's bottom line? It feels like we're just throwing money into a void to make sure some suit in a skyscraper doesn't have a bad quarter. Honestly, it's absurd.

And what about the logistics of handling the necessary personnel—you know, the voting body?

You've got a point there—I really do... but just keep one other thing in mind before you get too carried away. Everyone... We’re the ones holding the ballot, right? Which basically means we share the blame for whatever mess we end up with in office... isn't that just how it works?

Whether she turns out to be a total disaster or actually pulls it off...

briskdrifter3 said:Go ahead—give me one example of a nation where every single strategic industry is handed over to foreign capital without the whole thing turning into a complete circus.
Granting foreign interests a monopoly over oil, water, electricity, and transportation is essentially national suicide. We’ve already sold off our banks, and now we’re dealing with the fallout—sky-high interest rates and a White House that's effectively toothless in that sector. We handed our oil interests over to the Canadians, and once they achieve total control, we'll see the fallout there too, via crippling raw material costs—something we're already witnessing with General Mills and Dow Chemical. If we sell off the power grid, the highways, and the water supply... well, at that point, we barely have a sovereign nation left.

We’ve spent centuries grinding away just to keep this country together and maintain our independence, haven't we?

The thing is, we actually need the US Federal Budget 2012.

But The White House can't seem to pull it off... and honestly, even the economic experts are hitting a wall here... someone has to step up and get it done eventually.

Our only other option is to rely on those "guidelines" they hand down—but we already decided in our previous chats that following those is pretty much pointless...

So, it’s simple: either we pass a budget ourselves, or the European Union will just swoop in and dictate it for us next year.

And you know how this goes—once they finish selling off all the state-owned companies, they’ll start coming after private property too.

Black forecast: The number of liens and legal seizures is set to double.

Mark Campbell5 said:I don't even know where to start with this one—it's just... wow. Honestly, looking at the way things are moving, you have to wonder if anyone in charge actually has a plan, or if they're all just winging it and hoping for the best? It feels like we're constantly being blindsided by these sudden shifts in policy that nobody saw coming, even though the warning signs were practically screaming at us from the rooftops. Does anyone else get that feeling? Like we're just watching a slow-motion train wreck while everyone pretends everything is perfectly fine? It’s exhausting, really. Just one thing after another, and yet, somehow, we're expected to act surprised every single time.

My response...

It’s the same old song and dance, isn't it? That classic, tired argument people love to recycle—just sell everything off to foreign investors and hope we somehow make a killing on the tax revenue. In theory, sure, it sounds like a brilliant master plan, but we all know how that usually plays out.

Here’s how things actually play out in the real world:

So, I was sitting around wondering—and honestly, don't judge me for overthinking this one—just how much of a cut does the government actually take from the banks? You know, that specific tax hit they deal with? It’s one of those things that sounds simple until you start digging into the fine print of the tax code, and then suddenly you're three hours deep into a rabbit hole of fiscal policy. Does anyone actually have a straight answer on this, or is it all just a giant shell game played by the big players in D.C.?

0%

So, I was sitting here wondering—just a random thought that popped into my head while staring at my coffee—how much does the government actually rake in from bank taxes? You know, those little fees and levies tucked away in the fine print that seem to hit everyone eventually? It makes you wonder where all that cash actually goes once it leaves our accounts. Is it just disappearing into some bureaucratic void, or is there a clear line item for it somewhere in the US Federal Budget? Honestly, who even knows anymore?

So, earnings are sitting at exactly zero percent. Zero. Zilch. Nada. You ever just sit back and stare at the numbers until they start looking like a bad joke? It’s one of those moments where you wonder if the math is even working anymore—or if we’re all just participating in some massive, unintentional social experiment. Is it even worth checking the balance at this point, or should I just go ahead and embrace the void?

So, who actually footed the bill for those bank bailouts? Honestly, you have to wonder who’s really picking up the tab when the big guys stumble. Was it the taxpayers? The folks just trying to get through the week? It’s one of those questions that makes you want to sit down with a very large drink and just stare at a wall for a while.

The government—using our money, mind you.

So, basically, we bailed out the banks using our own damn money—handing it right back to the bankers who are already raking it in—while the rest of us, and the government for that matter, don't see a single cent of profit from the deal. Makes sense, right?

Look, let’s get one thing straight—the government isn't some damn social services agency tasked with babysitting the profits of big-bank executives... Is that really where we are now? Since when did the taxpayers become a safety net for Wall Street's bottom line? It feels like we're just throwing money into a void to make sure some suit in a skyscraper doesn't have a bad quarter. Honestly, it's absurd.

And what about the logistics of handling the necessary personnel—you know, the voting body?

You've got a point there—I really do... but just keep one other thing in mind before you get too carried away. Everyone... We’re the ones holding the ballot, right? Which basically means we share the blame for whatever mess we end up with in office... isn't that just how it works?

Whether she turns out to be a total disaster or actually pulls it off...

We’ve spent centuries grinding away just to keep this country together and maintain our independence, haven't we?

The thing is, we actually need the US Federal Budget 2012.

But The White House can't seem to pull it off... and honestly, even the economic experts are hitting a wall here... someone has to step up and get it done eventually.

Our only other option is to rely on those "guidelines" they hand down—but we already decided in our previous chats that following those is pretty much pointless...

So, it’s simple: either we pass a budget ourselves, or the European Union will just swoop in and dictate it for us next year.

And you know how this goes—once they finish selling off all the state-owned companies, they’ll start coming after private property too.

Black forecast: The number of liens and legal seizures is set to double.

The corporate tax is 21%—standard for any other business out there. On top of that, they have to cover payroll taxes and various levies for all their employees—which is about 20,000 people.

Banks are the only ones exempt from sales tax, but honestly, that doesn't change much for us since they'd just pass those costs right down to the consumers anyway.

The real question now is whether we should slap extra taxes on them—and how to actually do that without them hiking fees for everyone else (personally, I think it's nearly impossible)—but it's definitely not true that they aren't paying any taxes at all.

Mark Campbell5, don't get mad, but you clearly don't have the basics down. You're tossing around theories with total confidence that are, to put it mildly, flat-out wrong. A zero percent tax on banks? Should we draft our own federal budget, or just wait for the European Union to hand us one? Seizing private property? The government isn't some social welfare agency tasked with babysitting bank profits. 🤣
Where exactly are you getting this "information" from?

The only real way to handle the US Federal Budget and the economy is to just keep selling bonds and piling on the debt like we’ve always done. Then, at the very end, you just declare default and wipe the slate clean—either write off everything or buy back the debt for maybe 5-10% of its value.

Mark Campbell5 said:So, as most of you probably already know, The White House just dropped their guidelines on what they think the US Federal Budget should look like in the coming years.

The gist of it:

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 27, 2011 (Associated Press) - The core pillars of America's fiscal policy over the next three years involve shrinking the ratio of federal spending to GDP, cutting the deficit, and bringing down the public debt-to-GDP ratio—all of which were laid out during today's session at The White House where the economic and fiscal policy guidelines for the 2012–2014 period were officially approved.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/fiscal_policy_guidelines_2014

On paper, these guidelines actually seem decent enough...

But what I'm really chewing on is how we’d actually pull this off effectively.

1.) Cutting federal spending could be easiest if we went through layoffs (within the civil service) or by selling off state assets (think ExxonMobil, Kraft Heinz... things like that).

2.) We could also trim the budget through austerity measures—basically taking a hard inventory of government assets and personnel—and finding ways to distribute work more efficiently.

3.) Or, you know, we could just boost production and grow the GDP... which is the classic approach.

Here is the breakdown for the 2011 budget: http://www.treasury.gov/budget-2011

I'm curious, though—if you were calling the shots, what changes would you actually make?

From what I can see, none of the political parties are offering anything remotely concrete... so I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Man, I’d start by slashing Congressional salaries by 20% and nixing those sweet pension perks. Not even about the money—it's just about sending a message to the people, you know?

Then comes the shock treatment:

- grab an IMF loan to tackle our internal debt once and for all

- bring in a property tax

- privatize 49% of state-run giants—think forestry, water, Amtrak, or Duke Energy—under an American banner

- overhaul labor laws to be more flexible, basically sidelining unions by showing how they protect slackers instead of actual workers

- administrative cleanup—first step would be reverting to the number of cities and counties we had back in the America days. The current setup makes zero sense since we're financially centralized but totally decentralized administratively—counties and towns don't mean much when they aren't getting any budget flow anyway

- give those extra bureaucrats some severance pay and push them toward training so they can help pull in more EU funds

- fix the whole government pay scale so it's based on performance rather than just how long you've been sitting in the chair

- a massive wave of privatization—sell off majority stakes in companies like Končar, Kraft Heinz, or Dow Chemical (since we clearly haven't mastered running them)

- actually fix the judicial system and get the courts on track—honestly, there are more judges here than in England

- tighten the leash on agricultural subsidies

- take out an IMF loan to digitize land registries (but only after we scrub the corruption out of the IT sector)

- find a way to finally put all that abandoned military property to good use

dustyscout53 said:Man, I’d start by slashing Congressional salaries by 20% and nixing those sweet pension perks. Not even about the money—it's just about sending a message to the people, you know?

Then comes the shock treatment:

- grab an IMF loan to tackle our internal debt once and for all

- bring in a property tax

- privatize 49% of state-run giants—think forestry, water, Amtrak, or Duke Energy—under an American banner

- overhaul labor laws to be more flexible, basically sidelining unions by showing how they protect slackers instead of actual workers

- administrative cleanup—first step would be reverting to the number of cities and counties we had back in the America days. The current setup makes zero sense since we're financially centralized but totally decentralized administratively—counties and towns don't mean much when they aren't getting any budget flow anyway

- give those extra bureaucrats some severance pay and push them toward training so they can help pull in more EU funds

- fix the whole government pay scale so it's based on performance rather than just how long you've been sitting in the chair

- a massive wave of privatization—sell off majority stakes in companies like Končar, Kraft Heinz, or Dow Chemical (since we clearly haven't mastered running them)

- actually fix the judicial system and get the courts on track—honestly, there are more judges here than in England

- tighten the leash on agricultural subsidies

- take out an IMF loan to digitize land registries (but only after we scrub the corruption out of the IT sector)

- find a way to finally put all that abandoned military property to good use

But who’s actually going to pull that off? It’s much easier to stick to the old ways: just open at least 2,000 new government agencies. Only this time, don't put them in Washington, D.C.; spread them across the rest of America so you can employ maybe 100,000 to 200,000 new bureaucrats and non-profits dedicated to "social development"—you know, things like protecting ants, counting swallows, or monitoring grains of sand on beaches.
Basically, just complicate everything until it breaks.
Allow people to buy back their years of service so everyone can retire whenever they feel like it.

Mostly, we should just take out loans wherever we can find them—the bigger and longer the term, the better. That way, we won't be the ones paying them back; someone else will. Our kids, or if we're lucky, our grandkids.
Did we even finish paying off that last loan our people spent 60 or 70 years settling?

Harold Nelson6 said:The corporate tax is 21%—standard for any other business out there. On top of that, they have to cover payroll taxes and various levies for all their employees—which is about 20,000 people.

Banks are the only ones exempt from sales tax, but honestly, that doesn't change much for us since they'd just pass those costs right down to the consumers anyway.

The real question now is whether we should slap extra taxes on them—and how to actually do that without them hiking fees for everyone else (personally, I think it's nearly impossible)—but it's definitely not true that they aren't paying any taxes at all.

So, do banks actually pay corporate income tax? It’s one of those things you hear tossed around in political debates—usually when someone's mad about interest rates or bailouts—but people rarely stop to look at the actual math. Do they? Yeah, they do. They aren't some untouchable entity exempt from the IRS just because they hold everyone else's money. But, if you follow the money, it gets... complicated. You’ve got massive institutions like JPMorgan Chase or Bank of America dealing with layers upon layers of deductions, credits, and specialized accounting that would make most people's heads spin. It’s not like they just write a check for their total profit at the end of the year and call it a day. There's always a catch, isn't there? Between the way they hedge risks and how they navigate the tax code, the "effective" rate they pay often looks very different from the headline number you see on the news. So, yes, they pay, but don't go thinking it's as straightforward as a local coffee shop paying its dues.

So, what exactly did the Americans end up implementing then?

While every attempt to tax banks here in America seems to fizzle out before it even gets off the ground, our neighbors over in Canada actually pulled the trigger today by rolling out a tax on bank balance sheets. It’s only a tiny 0.1 percent—hardly enough to make anyone blink—but the White House over there is already spinning it as this brilliant move to jumpstart the economy and get credit flowing again. Because, you know, taxing the people who hold all the money is definitely how you encourage them to lend more, right?

I was just looking over some numbers regarding the US Federal Budget 2012—you know, that whole mess we dealt with back then—and it’s honestly wild how much the math just doesn't add up sometimes. It makes you wonder if anyone actually sits down in Washington, D.C., and looks at the big picture, or if they’re all just throwing darts at a board while sipping coffee? Apparently, there's this huge gap between what was promised and what's actually sitting in the coffers. It reminds me of those old stories from the America days, where everyone thought things were fine until the floor suddenly dropped out from under you. You see these projections, and then the Black forecast hits, and suddenly everyone is scrambling to find where the money went. It’s like when you’re trying to balance a checkbook but realize you spent half your paycheck on overpriced lattes and subscriptions you don't even use—except on a national scale, obviously. Is it incompetence? Is it systemic? Or is it just the way the machine is built to grind through cash? I don't have the answer, but watching the White House try to navigate these waters feels a bit like watching a guy try to fix a jet engine with a toothpick. Just... surreal, really.

I can't say I know exactly what you're getting at with "banderas," but if we're talking about flags—or whatever signal you're trying to send—it feels like we're just waving them in the wind at this point, doesn't it? Just constant signaling without much substance behind it. Anyway, carry on. Mark Campbell5 says:
Mark Campbell5, don’t get mad at me, but you really don't seem to have even the most basic grasp on this—you're tossing around theories with such massive confidence that are, to put it mildly, just plain wrong. A zero percent tax on banks? Seriously?

So, I was sitting here wondering—does anyone actually know how much tax those big banks shelled out last year? It feels like one of those numbers that stays buried under layers of corporate jargon and fine print, doesn't it? You see these massive headlines about profits, but when it comes to the actual tax bill they handed over to the IRS... well, it’s anyone's guess unless you're digging through some incredibly dense filing. Does anyone have the actual figures, or are we all just guessing based on what the news tells us?

I don't actually have that data on hand... you got a link or something where I can go double-check it?

I honestly don't even know where to start with this one—it’s just one of those things that gets under your skin if you think about it too long. You look at how things are being handled, and you just have to wonder... is anyone actually steering the ship, or are we all just drifting? It feels like we're constantly reacting to the last crisis instead of looking ahead. Is it just me, or does everything feel a bit more chaotic lately? Anyway, I'm probably just overthinking it again. Just my two cents. Mark Campbell5 says:
Are we going to bring the budget ourselves, or is the European Union just going to drop it on our doorstep?

If we actually end up joining the European Union, then logically... well, you know how it goes. Everything just shifts, doesn't it? It’s like when you move from a local setup to something massive and bureaucratic—you expect things to smooth out, but instead, you just get more layers of red tape to navigate. I mean, does anyone really think things stay simple once you're part of that kind of giant economic machine? It's all about the long game, I suppose, but there's always that nagging feeling that the rules change the moment you get comfortable.

So, if the central authority in the EU is actually planning out the budgets for every single nation... what does that even mean for us? I mean, seriously—if they’re sitting up there deciding the fiscal roadmap for every individual state, where does that leave local control? It feels like we're heading toward a setup where everything is micromanaged from the top down. Does anyone else get the sense that we're just becoming line items in some massive, centralized spreadsheet? Just a thought.

That’s exactly why they call it a union... it's meant to be shared—and it's an economic one because, well, that's what it's built on. Economics. Basic stuff, really.

How exactly are we supposed to build a unified economy—let alone a full-blown union—if we aren't even sitting down at the same table to hammer out the details together? It just doesn't add up, does it?

🤷

I don't even know where to start with this one—it’s just one of those things that sticks in your craw, you know? You look at the way everything is being handled lately and you just have to wonder if anyone in charge is actually paying attention, or if they're all just staring at their phones waiting for the next crisis to hit. It feels like we're constantly spinning our wheels, chasing after some idea of stability that keeps moving further out of reach. Is it just me, or does it feel like we're living through one long, drawn-out fever dream? Honestly, I've seen more coherent logic in a late-night infomercial than what we're seeing in the headlines most days. Anyway, just my two cents. Don't mind me. Asks:
So, we’re really talking about seizing private property now? Seriously? Is that where we are as a society? I mean, honestly—since when did the government decide they could just reach into your pocket whenever they feel like it? It feels like one of those slippery slope scenarios everyone warns you about, only instead of a warning, we're actually watching it happen. Where does it end? If they can take this, what's next? My car? My coffee machine? At this rate, I'll be lucky if I still own my own shoes by next Tuesday. It makes you wonder... who actually signed off on this level of overreach? Just a thought.

I dropped the link.

I can't say I know exactly what you're getting at with "banderas," but if we're talking flags—or whatever vibe you're trying to throw out there—it’s funny how much weight people put into symbols these days. It’s like everyone is constantly looking for a banner to rally under, isn't it? Whether it's some corporate logo or a political statement, people just love having something to wave around to prove they belong to a certain club. Personally, I think most of it is just noise. But hey, maybe I'm just being cynical. What was it you were actually aiming for here? kaže:
Is the government really supposed to act like a social services agency just to bail out bank profits? Honestly, since when did the White House become a safety net for big finance? It’s a bit much, isn't it?

Balloon loans? Seriously? Is that what we're calling them now? It’s like everyone just decided to collectively ignore the massive cliff we're walking toward—just stepping around it like it isn't there. You know, I was sitting there thinking about how much trouble we get into when we try to play fast and loose with the math... it's always the same story, isn't it? A little bit of breathing room today, a whole lot of "oh crap" tomorrow. It’s basically just delaying the inevitable, which—let's be honest—is a pretty classic move in this country. Why deal with the reality of a debt load right now when you can just push the headache down the road and pretend everything is fine? It's a gamble, plain and simple. Anyone else feeling like we're all just waiting for the other shoe to drop?

Wait, didn't the government step in to make sure those big banks didn't lose their shirts? I mean, wasn't that the whole point of all that intervention—keeping their profit margins from cratering?

So, what’s the deal with these housing incentives everyone keeps buzzing about? Is anyone actually seeing any movement in the real estate market because of them, or is it all just more political theater? I mean, we hear all this talk about stimulus packages and tax breaks to get people buying homes again—supposedly to jumpstart the economy—but does it ever actually reach the person looking at a starter home in a suburb outside of Chicago? Or does it just end up being another way for big developers to pad their margins while the rest of us stare at skyrocketing interest rates? Honestly, I’m curious if anyone here thinks these measures actually work, or if they're just throwing money into a black hole. What do you guys think? Is it a genuine boost, or just more noise?

So, who exactly is sitting on all these massive inventories of apartments they can't actually move? I mean, seriously—where is the money even coming from for these developers to build all this stuff in the first place? It’s a bit of a head-scratcher, isn't it?

[No input provided for rewriting.]

I don't know about you all, but I've been staring at these flags—these "banderas," if we're being fancy—and it’s got me thinking about how much symbolism we actually swallow every single day without a second thought. It's funny, isn't it? We see a pattern, a specific shade of red or blue, and suddenly we're ready to pick a side or start an argument in a Starbucks parking lot. Is it just me, or does everything feel like it needs a flag lately? Everything needs a banner to rally under, a little piece of fabric to tell us who we are and who we aren't. It’s almost exhausting, really. You look at the history books—or whatever passes for them these days—and it’s just endless waves of colors changing, people fighting over what a certain stripe represents, while the rest of us are just trying to figure out if the coffee is worth the five-dollar markup. Anyway, I digress. Just a random thought floating around my head while I was scrolling through this mess. What do you guys think? Are we all just obsessed with labels, or am I just getting old and cynical? Probably a bit of both. [User Name] says: 🤣 And where exactly are you getting this "information" from? Seriously.

So, I was scrolling through some stuff online the other day... 😁

dustyscout53 Asks:
If I were calling the shots, I’d slash those congressional salaries by 20% tomorrow—and don't even get me started on those sweet, sweet pensions they get. Abolish them. Completely. And look, I’m not saying this because we need to balance the books or anything—I mean, we all know how that goes—but it's about the principle of it. It’s about sending a message to the rest of the country. People deserve to see that their leaders aren't living in some untouchable bubble while everyone else is grinding away. Isn't that how it should work?

That’s an interesting point you made there.

dustyscout53 said:Man, I’d start by slashing Congressional salaries by 20% and nixing those sweet pension perks. Not even about the money—it's just about sending a message to the people, you know?

Then comes the shock treatment:

- grab an IMF loan to tackle our internal debt once and for all

- bring in a property tax

- privatize 49% of state-run giants—think forestry, water, Amtrak, or Duke Energy—under an American banner

- overhaul labor laws to be more flexible, basically sidelining unions by showing how they protect slackers instead of actual workers

- administrative cleanup—first step would be reverting to the number of cities and counties we had back in the America days. The current setup makes zero sense since we're financially centralized but totally decentralized administratively—counties and towns don't mean much when they aren't getting any budget flow anyway

- give those extra bureaucrats some severance pay and push them toward training so they can help pull in more EU funds

- fix the whole government pay scale so it's based on performance rather than just how long you've been sitting in the chair

- a massive wave of privatization—sell off majority stakes in companies like Končar, Kraft Heinz, or Dow Chemical (since we clearly haven't mastered running them)

- actually fix the judicial system and get the courts on track—honestly, there are more judges here than in England

- tighten the leash on agricultural subsidies

- take out an IMF loan to digitize land registries (but only after we scrub the corruption out of the IT sector)

- find a way to finally put all that abandoned military property to good use

They tried all of that stuff in Argentina... and it ended in a total economic meltdown... definitely not a winning model if you ask me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argenti...%E2%80%932002)

video

dustyscout53 said:Man, I’d start by slashing Congressional salaries by 20% and nixing those sweet pension perks. Not even about the money—it's just about sending a message to the people, you know?

Then comes the shock treatment:

- grab an IMF loan to tackle our internal debt once and for all

- bring in a property tax

- privatize 49% of state-run giants—think forestry, water, Amtrak, or Duke Energy—under an American banner

- overhaul labor laws to be more flexible, basically sidelining unions by showing how they protect slackers instead of actual workers

- administrative cleanup—first step would be reverting to the number of cities and counties we had back in the America days. The current setup makes zero sense since we're financially centralized but totally decentralized administratively—counties and towns don't mean much when they aren't getting any budget flow anyway

- give those extra bureaucrats some severance pay and push them toward training so they can help pull in more EU funds

- fix the whole government pay scale so it's based on performance rather than just how long you've been sitting in the chair

- a massive wave of privatization—sell off majority stakes in companies like Končar, Kraft Heinz, or Dow Chemical (since we clearly haven't mastered running them)

- actually fix the judicial system and get the courts on track—honestly, there are more judges here than in England

- tighten the leash on agricultural subsidies

- take out an IMF loan to digitize land registries (but only after we scrub the corruption out of the IT sector)

- find a way to finally put all that abandoned military property to good use

That sounds like a decent enough idea... care to elaborate?

dustyscout53 said:Man, I’d start by slashing Congressional salaries by 20% and nixing those sweet pension perks. Not even about the money—it's just about sending a message to the people, you know?

Then comes the shock treatment:

- grab an IMF loan to tackle our internal debt once and for all

- bring in a property tax

- privatize 49% of state-run giants—think forestry, water, Amtrak, or Duke Energy—under an American banner

- overhaul labor laws to be more flexible, basically sidelining unions by showing how they protect slackers instead of actual workers

- administrative cleanup—first step would be reverting to the number of cities and counties we had back in the America days. The current setup makes zero sense since we're financially centralized but totally decentralized administratively—counties and towns don't mean much when they aren't getting any budget flow anyway

- give those extra bureaucrats some severance pay and push them toward training so they can help pull in more EU funds

- fix the whole government pay scale so it's based on performance rather than just how long you've been sitting in the chair

- a massive wave of privatization—sell off majority stakes in companies like Končar, Kraft Heinz, or Dow Chemical (since we clearly haven't mastered running them)

- actually fix the judicial system and get the courts on track—honestly, there are more judges here than in England

- tighten the leash on agricultural subsidies

- take out an IMF loan to digitize land registries (but only after we scrub the corruption out of the IT sector)

- find a way to finally put all that abandoned military property to good use

Doesn't work... we all know exactly who’s pocketing those checks. Got any actual ideas on how to make it functional?

dustyscout53 said:Man, I’d start by slashing Congressional salaries by 20% and nixing those sweet pension perks. Not even about the money—it's just about sending a message to the people, you know?

Then comes the shock treatment:

- grab an IMF loan to tackle our internal debt once and for all

- bring in a property tax

- privatize 49% of state-run giants—think forestry, water, Amtrak, or Duke Energy—under an American banner

- overhaul labor laws to be more flexible, basically sidelining unions by showing how they protect slackers instead of actual workers

- administrative cleanup—first step would be reverting to the number of cities and counties we had back in the America days. The current setup makes zero sense since we're financially centralized but totally decentralized administratively—counties and towns don't mean much when they aren't getting any budget flow anyway

- give those extra bureaucrats some severance pay and push them toward training so they can help pull in more EU funds

- fix the whole government pay scale so it's based on performance rather than just how long you've been sitting in the chair

- a massive wave of privatization—sell off majority stakes in companies like Končar, Kraft Heinz, or Dow Chemical (since we clearly haven't mastered running them)

- actually fix the judicial system and get the courts on track—honestly, there are more judges here than in England

- tighten the leash on agricultural subsidies

- take out an IMF loan to digitize land registries (but only after we scrub the corruption out of the IT sector)

- find a way to finally put all that abandoned military property to good use

Here's what actually happened:

The Vice President and Secretary of the Treasury, Ivan Šuker, signed an agreement this Tuesday with the head of the World Bank office in America, Andreas Horvai, for a 26 million euro loan aimed at improving the efficiency of the judicial system.

source

It just doesn't work...

dustyscout53 said:Man, I’d start by slashing Congressional salaries by 20% and nixing those sweet pension perks. Not even about the money—it's just about sending a message to the people, you know?

Then comes the shock treatment:

- grab an IMF loan to tackle our internal debt once and for all

- bring in a property tax

- privatize 49% of state-run giants—think forestry, water, Amtrak, or Duke Energy—under an American banner

- overhaul labor laws to be more flexible, basically sidelining unions by showing how they protect slackers instead of actual workers

- administrative cleanup—first step would be reverting to the number of cities and counties we had back in the America days. The current setup makes zero sense since we're financially centralized but totally decentralized administratively—counties and towns don't mean much when they aren't getting any budget flow anyway

- give those extra bureaucrats some severance pay and push them toward training so they can help pull in more EU funds

- fix the whole government pay scale so it's based on performance rather than just how long you've been sitting in the chair

- a massive wave of privatization—sell off majority stakes in companies like Končar, Kraft Heinz, or Dow Chemical (since we clearly haven't mastered running them)

- actually fix the judicial system and get the courts on track—honestly, there are more judges here than in England

- tighten the leash on agricultural subsidies

- take out an IMF loan to digitize land registries (but only after we scrub the corruption out of the IT sector)

- find a way to finally put all that abandoned military property to good use

Absolutely.

wearytrucker22 said:But who’s actually going to pull that off? It’s much easier to stick to the old ways: just open at least 2,000 new government agencies. Only this time, don't put them in Washington, D.C.; spread them across the rest of America so you can employ maybe 100,000 to 200,000 new bureaucrats and non-profits dedicated to "social development"—you know, things like protecting ants, counting swallows, or monitoring grains of sand on beaches.
Basically, just complicate everything until it breaks.
Allow people to buy back their years of service so everyone can retire whenever they feel like it.

Mostly, we should just take out loans wherever we can find them—the bigger and longer the term, the better. That way, we won't be the ones paying them back; someone else will. Our kids, or if we're lucky, our grandkids.
Did we even finish paying off that last loan our people spent 60 or 70 years settling?

The whole system is broken now... which explains why the stock markets look the way they do today... the entire financial system is basically collapsing.

Mark Campbell5 said:The whole system is broken now... which explains why the stock markets look the way they do today... the entire financial system is basically collapsing.

Well, damn. If that's the case, we're in deep trouble.😕
They can't just pull the rug out from under us like that. They got us hooked on credit, and now suddenly they're cutting us off?
It’s like an addiction crisis. When addicts go through withdrawal, they get their fix—so why can't they at least throw us $2 billion a year to keep things moving?

Argentina doesn't really matter here—I mean, they end up in default every other week, right?

We need judicial reform that actually keeps disputes out of the courtroom. We’ve already got mediators and arbitration processes in place... but look, if we’re going to make this work, we have to deal with the court staff issue—right now, the whole system just seems designed to protect their own jobs.

The way subsidy oversight works is a joke because nobody is actually enforcing anything. We need more inspections and some seriously heavy fines. Also, we've gotta stop mixing social welfare with agricultural economics and get smarter about how we handle subsidies. For instance, back when capital investment rebates for machinery hit 40%, tractor importers hiked their prices by 20% instantly. It's that kind of stuff.

If I actually knew how to pull all of this off operationally, I'd be running a political party.

Everyone seems to have an opinion on where to cut the budget, but let’s be honest—it’s a pipe dream... we can't just slash everything and hope for the best. My philosophy? Incentives. Plain and simple. I’d advocate for giving every manufacturing firm a total VAT exemption—or at least a massive reduction down to 5%—to actually get things moving. Since we don't exactly have a massive industrial base here in the States yet, we wouldn't face an immediate hole in the US Federal Budget; after all, the tax revenue mostly flows from the big retailers anyway. I’d also push for eliminating customs duties and sales tax on imports of all primary raw materials—think timber logs, steel, polymer granules, and the like. And why not make utility hookups for electricity and water free? (Which is precisely why companies like Duke Energy and h voda should remain under state control...) Oh, and let's not forget making building permits and other regulatory hurdles non-existent for any greenfield manufacturing investments. We need to totally strip away restrictions on financial transactions too—so that services like PayPal finally work without all the endless friction—and waive taxes on all IT hardware.
Incentives are the actual solution, rather than just stripping away existing benefits or trying to cut through red tape...

Mark Campbell5 said:The whole system is broken now... which explains why the stock markets look the way they do today... the entire financial system is basically collapsing.

The financial system has been falling apart since day one. We deal with recessions constantly—it’s just that people have such short memories, you know? If you want the real story, check out Alan Greenspan - Era of financial instability.

Mark Campbell5, you’re tripping over the most basic terminology—how can you even attempt to debate a country's social, monetary, or political structure if you haven't mastered the fundamentals? You really need to get your facts straight before diving into such broad philosophy.

Corporate income tax has absolutely zero connection to balance sheet tax—I don't even know where to begin explaining how different they are. 🙂

Back in 2010, banks in the US paid $140 million in corporate income tax. And I bet you'll struggle to figure out why they earned more while paying less than the previous year—you'll probably just claim it's the banking lobby at work again.