Can you be liberal and Christian at the same time?

I stated my purpose was to support him. And you did not like that at all.

However thank you for asking me since I do know the answer and gave it to you.

 

Most Democrats, nay ... it seems like all Democrats, forget how the Feds operations were established and the then system.

The Feds at that time relied on the States for advice. States were defacto operators of the Feds.

To make it work, Senators were created to be liaisons between states and the Feds. Somebody decided in the early 1900s to wipe out that link. It is vital for states to assist the Feds operations.

Thus we must restore the system by ending the 17th amendment restrictions. We the people had representatives and still do in the house of representatives.

We the people fleck up the system by confusing the Senate. Let our states speak freely again to the Feds and give them states instructions.

 

I think you're combining two very different ideas.

Which government body makes each spending decision is a separate issue. It is not dependent on how we raise revenue (which I think you at least hint at). It's dependent on what we see as federal level issues.


I'm not so sure I see the advantage in having the states collect the income taxes to pay for what the federal government does. For example, it seems like it moves the revenue issues even farther away from the spending issues. So, giving a boost to the DoD is made by a federal legislature that is farther away from the states - where the rubber hits the road, if they're the ones who have to raise the revenue.

I know there are reasons for more features of the federal government to be moved toward the states - at least, there there are opinions along that line.

But, for stuff like the DoD, where we all know it's federal and we all want a strong DoD, I'm not sure how this state involvement improves the picture.

 

Are you suggesting that there should be no Senate, that the Senate shouldn't be elected by the people, or what?

 

i sure wish your replies sounded as if you read all I said. I am trying to be kind sir.

No, I said the Senate is original. To work closely with the Feds to operate the system. We need more help from states. We must have the Senate. I believe the original system with a tweak was better. I want my state that I despise our leaders of to at least sit in on the Feds and have a serious conversation with the Feds.

 

I'm sure you're aware that THAT won't work.

After all, today's per capita tax burden in Utah is less than half the per capita tax burden in Nebraska.

And, it gets WAY more out of hand than that.

 

I have no idea what that would look like.

Today, our federal legislature is composed of representatives elected by the people of my state and other states.

There certainly are issues. For example, Washington, D.C. gets ZERO representation, yet has a per capita federal income tax burden that is ten times the burden of West Virginia, which gets two senators and THREE representatives!!!

Talk about "taxation without representation"! If you mean fixing that, then I'd have to agree.

But, I don't know what you mean by saying "more help from the states".

 

DC to compare to my small city is 68.34 sq miles vs my city of about 93 sq miles. My city being much larger has no representatives nor senators. Cities like Los Angeles would get over 12 times more representatives.

Do you see why a tiny area needs no senators or representatives?

To help the Feds takes us back to the foundation of this government. It was set up to work closely with states. Today they dismiss states. Why? The Senators are treated as representatives not as close workers with the Feds.

Advice and consent means from the states to the Feds.

 

Wow!

First, representatives are not apportioned by the acre.

Second, you DO have representation and DC does NOT have representation.

Third, Wyoming is smaller than Washington, DC, yet Wyoming gets a representative and DC does not. Plus, CA is 80 times as populous as Wyoming and has only about 50 times as many representatives. So, CA has LESS federal representation per capita than Wyoming EVEN IN THE HOUSE! (Of course, a CA resident has almost NO representation in the Senate compared to someone in Wyoming!)

This is why our electoral college has given us Presidents that the popular vote opposes.

Beyond that, I have NO idea what you mean by your idea that the legislature no longer works closely with "the Feds". What "Feds" are you talking about? It's true that the Executive Branch has independent latitude. Is THAT what you mean?

 

I did not say representatives are apportioned by the acre.

I was pointing out only that DC is a city. My city is too. My city really is represented by Democrats and I functionally have none for me. I am as bad off as the public in DC using your analogy.

 

More help from the states is the states all have legislatures. As it is today, the chiefs of DC called the Senate do not need to consult state governments for advice.

I thought when I said to restore it to the natural state, it was clear. I assumed you knew hot the original hot dogs set things up. (off to advise PBS newshour.) 3 pm PST so you are welcome to chat to them there.I enter via you tube

 

Two senators per state is a dumb, outdated idea that should be corrected immediately.

 

OK, there I kept explaining that Judy Woodruff constantly supports only Democrats. And when she has interviews, she heavily favors Democrats. She had Al Gore on today who lied about climate. What else can we expect of Al Gore?

 

Have you been in the US Capitol? Did you see that the Senate chambers can't take a lot more?

 

I don't care about that at all. Build a new one.

 

What two very different ideas do you think I'm combining?

Should it not be the people who make the decision on what should be Federal issues?

States currently collect taxes, most of them on income as well, but HOW the revenue is collected need not be on income and a State could raise its sales tax or use some other method to acquire the revenue it needs.


The source of the revenue is the people, who currently pay taxes to local, State and Federal governments. Currently, the Federal government collects a large amount of revenue from citizens of ALL the States, and returns a disproportionate amount back to each of the States, borrowing money EVERY year, increasing our debt since 1957, the last year our debt decreased from the previous year. Over the last several decades, defense spending has ranged from between 16-22% of the Federal budget. What I'm suggesting would be a major simplification of taxation, necessary revenue would remain collected from the people of each State, some by their local government and the remainder by their State government. The money would flow from its source as always, to where it is being spent, without any having to return to where it originated from, eliminating costs of Federal involvement in State/local government spending.

 

And why not?

Looking at the current budget of $4,173,000,000,000 the Federal tax burden for Utah would be about $39,226,200,000 while that of Nebraska would be about $24,620,700,000 or a per capita tax of about $12,900 for each and every State.

Please elaborate.

 

Sales tax is harder on people at the middle and below. Those are the people we want to impact the least.

We already have a problem that wage earners, middle Americans are seeing no increase in buying power.

Pushing the tax burden toward them is just not acceptable.

As for income tax, you haven't explained a better way to distribute the tax load yet. The federal requirement on states to produce some average number of dollars per person doesn't work, as the states are quite different.

I would add that further detaching revenue from spending sounds like a recipe for failure. The two are already too detached, if anything. If the federal government is going to be involved in the decision making (the spending), they need to be in the position of being required to fund their plans. I know it doesn't always happen that way today, but moving AWAY from that even more than we are hits me as a dangerous mistake.

 

As I pointed out, people in Utah do not make as much money as those in West Virginia (for one example). The result is that coughing up some dollar amount is going to be more of a burden on Utah than it is on residents of West Virginia.

Your idea is monumentally regressive - it puts more of the burden of federal spending on those with lower income.

 

As for taxpayers, I've not suggested changing anything more than changing the path of travel of their taxes to the destination where the actual spending takes place. Initially, all that would change is that tax revenue collected would be distributed directly to where it has been budgeted for spending, a one way path.

 

Maybe you got your numbers mixed up?
Take 2010 for example, the last year the census was taken, and the military budget was $721 billion. The Federal government collected $13.5 billion in taxes from Utah taxpayers and $6 billion in taxes from West Virginia taxpayers. What I've proposed would have resulted in a fair share of military funding by Utah of $6,454,124,493 and for West Virginia $4,327,079,709.
I've not changed the burden of Federal spending at all, but have eliminated pork from the Federal budget.

 

Well, I understand the sentiment. But, there are too many reasons for there not being such a change.

It takes away from congress both power and responsibility. For example, it takes away the ability to encourage specific activity through tax breaks.

It raises questions concerning fairly distributing the cost of those features that are national - such as DoD, FEMA, foreign policy, etc.

 

I agree you are proposing to collect less federal revenue.

But, I don't see any argument related to your idea accomplishing the same function with a fraction of the revenue.

 

Except for the fact that I don't allow sentiment to replace rational reasoning.

The intent would be to 'return' control of our representatives in Congress to the 'People' AND the 'States'. What specific activities should be encouraged through tax breaks?

The cost of National concerns, DoD, FEMA, and foreign policy, would remain a responsibility of the Federal government and would be assessed each State equally relative to their Proportion of the Census as originally provided by our Constitution, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3. About the only change in distributing the costs of government, both State and Federal, I can see might be an increase in the tax rate of the highest income earners in some States.

 

Not just less Federal revenue, but less Federal spending, but with much less direct economic function in the lives and governance of the people and the States.

The point is not for the Federal government to continue to accomplish the same function with a fraction of the revenue, but for State and local governments to take back responsibility for accomplishing many of the functions currently provided funding by the return of more/less of the revenue collected from their citizens by eliminating the return trip of the money. State and local governments would be made more responsible to their constituents to provide good governance, and much more available to be held accountable.