Correct. The lower end tends to receive more from the Government than the upper end. So in a way, it's still progressive...

Yes, it includes intragovernmental debt. Are you implying that we don't have to pay back the debt we borrowed from the Social Security program, that which is promised to others? The Federal Government owes that money to the people it's promised, right?

Claiming it's not "real" debt means that when I take out a loan and guarantee it with money in my savings account, then the loan doesn't count as an outstanding debt. It's a debt and counts. Add up your debts, add up your assets, and you'll find your net worth.

Go to a bank, show them the above, and ask them if they will "ignore" your outstanding debt you backed with existing assets (bank account). They'll laugh you out of the bank. GAAP pretty much requires you to count that debt (of course, the Federal Government chooses to ignore GAAP because it's politically embarrassing - never mind that if you didn't use GAAP for your own tax reporting or public financial disclosure the same Federal Government will prosecute you and toss you into Federal PMITA Prison).0

In the case of the US Federal Government revenues, our debts piled up a little over $1 trillion more than our assets last year - and always piled up more than revenues, during the Clinton years.

You're 100% correct. The Federal Government should provide each State with a bill (based upon its population) and let the States decide how to collect the revenue.

Deductions from income allowed the average person to pay, in inflation adjusted dollars, less than HALF of what they pay today in taxes. Sure, it was nominally a higher rate - but the Federal Government received a little less than half the dollars, per capita, than it did back in those days. Elimination of deductions, constant lowering of income brackets, addition of additional taxes all add up to more than doubling the Federal Government's revenue. Even with a nominally lower tax rate.

The Federal Government is planning to spend about $3.9 trillion dollars. There are about 320 million in the US. So hand every man, woman, and child a bill for $12,187 and be done with it. That's what the Federal Government is spending on your behalf, you should plan to provide it with that revenue.

What Clinton surplus? If we had an actual surplus, would our national debt have increased every year (meaning we spent more than we brought in)? The fact is the "Clinton surplus" NEVER existed. It was a nicely crafted lie. The annual debt has increased EVERY YEAR since Ike was a President. Clinton's "surplus" was from the same set of lies that allowed President Obama to claim a $486 billion deficit in 2014 even though we added nearly $1.1 trillion in new debt. How the debt goes up when you supposedly have a surplus, or how a $486 billion deficit creates $1.1 trillion in debt is a mystery that can only be solved in Washington DC.

RO runs about $0.005 per gallon; we're paying a little more than that in Ventura, CA - and the Los Angeles basin is even higher. RO is the solution - and it's an economical one, given the price most people pay in California.

RO costs about $0.005 per gallon. I pay a little more than that right now for current water sources, here in Ventura, CA. RO would have a zero-cost increase (and probably a decrease) for all of Southern California, which constitutes about 75% of the population.

Your math is bad. I pay $3.80 per HCF in Ventura, CA - and that works out to $0.005 per gallon (748 gallons per HCF). And I know Ventura is about 70-80% of the cost of water in the LA basin, so they're paying even more.

Great! Would you love to pay my water bill? I pay $3.80 per HCF - which is a touch over $0.005 per gallon. I live in Ventura, CA. RO wouldn't affect my costs at all, nor most of the costs for the entire Southern CA region. RO would make great economic sense down here.

FTFY.

When you can't do the former, you do the latter.

What does the cost of the Iraq war, ExxonMobil's profits, and the Army R&D budget have to do with spending regarding climate science?

Don't worry, that's what the precincts with more than 100% turnout are there for - to cover those who don't vote!

Cut the plans, give back the money, and I bet you won't see the rebellions...