katahdins dont have wool, they are HAIR sheep. That is their big benefit. Look them up, a man from your state actually created them by breeding several different types of sheep together over 25 years.

Ah. So... do you raise them for meat?

well, I am guessing that is what the people buy them for....lol

I have been staying away from red meat lot the past few years,. although I will treat myself to some lamb chops from time to time.

However, yes, they are raised strictly for meat.

Tennessee is very hot and humid, and katahdisn are very parasite resistant, so they are one of the few sheep who do well here.

krellin rational compromise:
1. Means test all "social safety nets": i.e. Social security, medicare, etc - if you have assets and investment beyond (some value), you don't get these. Ross Perot, Mitt Romney, etc should *never* receive these.
2. End the limits on social security tax and similar taxes - currently, you only pay these taxes up to a certain limit of your income (like $45,000 or something). So, if you make $1 million, you do not pay FICA on the majority of your income. You should *always* pay these taxes on your entire income.
3. Close "tax avoidance" loopholes -- such as this: Apple wholly own foreign companies which they transfer their technology to. They then *pay* these companies (read "tax write-off") to use their own technology. There are companies with profits of $130 Billion last year that paid zero taxes through such schemes. This must end.

*** There....Mr. Conservative just gave you 3 forms of increased revenue without raising base tax rates.

Now...
1. Please eliminate *all* redundant government departments, to start.
2. Eliminate "baseline" budgeting, which provides automatic budget increases acros the board every year
3. Annual external, non-partisan auditing of the Federal budget
4. Pass a Balanced Budget Amendment
5. Line item veto
6. "Congress shall be subject too all laws they pass..."
7. A congressperson in a Congress which fails to pass a balanced budget is not allowed to run for Federal office
8. Eliminate all Federal departments for which every state has the same department - such as Education.

VAT is stupid. Adding ANOTHER layer of Federal taxes will do nothing to solve the problem until you restrain out-of-control Federal spending. anyone that thinks we have a revenue problem has never run a household budget, and knows **nothing** about the US economy or the size of the Federal budget, and in particular the growth of the Federal spending over the last 5-10 years. Revenue is **not** the problem, even as I concede there are logical, reasonable ways to get more of it (see above).

Tax on products does two things:
1. Reduces the ability/desire for people to buy the product -- thus less production, thus fewer jobs
2. Causes people to find alternate ways to acquire products to avoid the tax (i.e. black market activity)

Even from Krellin, there's some stuff in there I wouldn't challenge.
On #1, though, means-testing safety nets, if we follow my suggestion of converting from defined-benefit to defined-contribution, I should think that even those people would get back their initially-invested principal. (Reading between the lines, going to defined-benefit means I'd even be open to privatizing social security into an IRA-style retirement with a minimum contribution, in which case means-testing for the payouts could amount to illegal seizure.)

kRELLIN, i DONT want another layer of taxes, I want them all removed ...lol

I want taxes to be based off sales, which of course is againt the law right now, but either than, or one flat tax for all.

Anything beats the bullshit we have NOW.

Krellin - what's your thought on leveling capital gains with income tax in exchange for a reduction in marginal rates?

hecks- libs will never agree to defined contribution. Bush was slaughtered when he suggested this -- you are taking privatization of retirement - a *wholly* conservative concept that does not work in a grand bargain.

As for capital gains, they are a second or third bite on the apple. They should be eliminated, as they stifle investment activity. that being said, leave 'em at 15% - a good compromise.

As for taxes - level across the board 17% for *all* would be ideal - it will never happen in a grand compromise, so it is dead on arrival. They can not be eliminated because even teh Constitution requires a government, so rational conservatives admit the need for some revenue. Basing them off sales will kill industries, and is impossible to do in a grand compromise, thus dead on arrival. A *fair*, level income tax accomplishes the same objective (i.e. wealthy pay more.)

I tend to be pretty far to the left, and I'd agree to defined-contribution for future contributions. You'd have a harder time talking a lot of my cohorts into privatizing, but defined-contribution administered by the federal government? I think you could talk them into it, especially if you added some sort of safety valve to protect seniors in the event of a catastrophic crash... say, that if the value of your portfolio plus distributions taken dips below 80% of your initial principal, you'll get some sort of food assistance to help you survive?

Hecks, the real liberals have not shown up yet....lol They are coming soon.

Speaking as a conservative: I like pretty much all of Krellin's ideas. He's got increased revenues and decreased spending. And all the increased revenue hits the "evil rich". Cool.

Hecks made a big concession on Social Security, I think we conservatives should respond with a big concession on military spending. How about a 50% reduction of troops stationed overseas? Surely it costs more to house/feed/clothe a soldier in Germany than it does in Arizona, and a soldier in Arizona will spend more of his paycheck in the states, stimulating the local economy. It's a win/win economically, and doesn't even decrease the strength of the military. Sure, it might lower our ability to project force around the globe, but I think a lot of us would agree that ability to project force in Khazakstan or Zimbabwe is not necessarily a measure of security for American citizens.

Also, I don't think eliminating the Department of Education is a good idea. But I do think you could present a very logical plan for the Department that makes it a lot leaner on staff and charges it with coordinating cooperation, best practices, and information sharing among state departments. That way you'd see a much smaller, leaner department that still maintains education as a national priority.

Hecks, why not? Since the Federal Government has taken over the Education system, it has went straight to shit.

Why not give it back to the states/community?

If it is so important, lets cut away a lot of the fat (the Federal government) which was not helping (obviously by all results) and give it back to the states, who have a much more vested interest in it?

I'm willing to compromise on most economic issues.

Social issues like abortion, public education, gay marriage: not a chance. Why have these not been mentioned? I know they are distracting to some degree, but they are extremely important. Can conservatives get behind this at all?

Education in the US is a disaster -- that alone is enough reason to eliminate the department!

OK, I need to read the whole thread but have to put this out there...

@hecks - "I'd also be willing to reduce the corporate tax rate *and* the top marginal tax rate if it enabled us to increase capital gains to be level with that top marginal rate. I just think people who own things for a living ought to pay as much as people who work for a living. "

Why? The person who works for a living risks nothing. They are guaranteed their pay check by law. The person who "owns things" makes money by putitng those things they own at risk. Why should they pay the same for risking their property that someone who just works for a living pays? Sorry, but on this I would never compromise. I woudl agree to an *increase* in capital gains, but not to the same level as they pay with a seven figure slary. Capital gains should be at the level of a normal middle income tax rate, no higher. That would encourage upper middle and upper class incomes (what we used to call HCEs) to invest while not making middle and lower income class members feel like they are footing the bill. But if you make it the same as havign a salary in the upper echelon, you suddenly make investing have a net negative ROI vs. Risk.

@YJ,
They haven't been mentioned because, unlike fiscal bargaining, we're not under a self-imposed, completely unnecessary, absurdly avoidable deadline.

Independent auditors shoudl review the effectiveness of fed departments, and when found lacking, as compared to private and/or state equivalents, they get eliminated.

"Social issues like abortion, public education, gay marriage: not a chance. Why have these not been mentioned?" Funding for social issues shoudl be 100% eliminated. they have no place in a Federal budget.

"Education in the US is a disaster -- that alone is enough reason to eliminate the department!"

Poverty in the US is a disaster -- that alone is enough reason to eliminate welfare!

@Draug,
At the moment, the markets are obscenely overcapitalized. The problem stimulating the economy isn't a lack of capital, it's a lack of demand, and pouring another billion dollars in investment into Apple isn't going to change that.

When the economy is booming and growth is limited only by capacity, I strongly agree with making policy moves to encourage the flow of capital into the market. But at the moment, I think we'd be better off encouraging spending.

@YJ - Welfare should be eliminated as we know it, yes. the program is an abysmal failure. We pay people to do nothing. If nothing else, get welfare recipients to work rebuilding the roads - there is plenty of work that needs to be done in this country. We should not pay people to sit.

But you are taking the swing to far. Remember the compromise your propose? How is taxing investments to the max a compromise? I said I would compromise with an increase to make it equal to a standard middle class income (lets say in the 50K a year tax bracket). Now you are supposed to counter propose, not try to ram your extreme "tax to the max!" view through. That isn't compromise.

@krellin - What about social security for the infirm amongst us? You know, the mentally handicapped or physically disabled? How about for the orphans? The children who are innocent and can't go to work to support themselves? These are wlfare programs. You are as bad as the liberals about throwing out the baby with the bath water.

@Draug
Oh, I wasn't ramming. You asked why, and I was answering why I thought that was the case.
Also, my initial proposal was a compromise in that I'd bring down all the marginal rates. But I'm certainly open to further compromise in the direction of what you propose.

You raise a good point. I certainly wouldn't want a retiree living off the paltry interest on a bank CD to pay at the highest marginal rate. I'm open to compromise, and an increase to the middle rate is a good offer. How would you feel about treating it exactly the same as earned income, fitting it into the progressive (though we could flatten it somewhat) rate system, and keeping intact my previously-offered cuts to all marginal rates? That way retirees with modest capital gains would pay at a rate lower than the middle rate, and people with large capital gains would pay at a higher rate.

I should also say, I could get behind either a pure sales tax method of taxing or a flat tax - completely flat, the only allowances being a fixed per person up front deduction. No itemizing, no different rates for investments and payroll (this is still fair as it doesn't discriminate the way putting capital gains at the max rate does) and no spreading capital losses across years to account for future profits. Make one rate or make it be sales tax based with all but basic necessities taxed (i,e, no tax on bus fair or on rent payments/mortgage payments, or food in a grocery store and add TP to the list of non-taxables cause, lets face it, it is a necessity).

Also, regardless of what we come out with, I think we should sacrifice the sacred cow: end the home mortgage interest deduction.