Poll

2 votes (12.5%)
4 votes (25%)
5 votes (31.25%)
5 votes (31.25%)

16 members have voted

boymimbo
boymimbo
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
April 11th, 2011 at 8:00:37 PM permalink
The Federal Government's outlays have grown from 1.789 trillion in 2000 to 3.456 trillion in 2010. (In 2007, it was 2.728 trillion so you can't blame Obama for all of this).... so a 93.2 percent growth in Federal Government outlays in 10 years. Revenue grew from 2.025 trillion to 2.163 trillion (2007 it was 2.568 trillion) in the same period. All figures in 2005 dollars. Source is taxpolicycenter.org.

YOU CAN BLAME OBAMA for not taking drastic measures when he took over.

So I would agree that the Federal Government has gotten WAY too big. Bring spending down to 2.5 trillion. Increase taxes to match. Continue shrinking government and bring taxes down. You need surpluses to pay down some of the massive debt and the only way to do that is to balance the budget, bring the government down in size and increase GDP through financial policy and growth. That means massive layoffs in the government and cutting back on social programs, including medicare. Increase the FICA tax and increase the limits. Increase Social Security tax (why the government cut 2 percent (17 percent of revenue) this year from Social Security tax this year is unfathomable) and increase the limits. More tax brackets on the rich (get rid of the Bush tax cuts). End the stimulus. Rework ObamaCare. Remove red tape from business so that they can operate.

No one will be happy. But when you've been living on the government teat and reaping the benefits of a free government credit card, the party has to end.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1317
  • Posts: 21617
April 11th, 2011 at 10:15:20 PM permalink
Personally, I advocate a pay as you go system. On an annual basis, government spending for that year will be estimated, and all federal taxes will be adjusted to match that spending. For example, if we would need to increase taxes by 25% to pay for what the budget, then whatever you would normally pay in taxes, multiply it by 1.25. Like the Maryland "piggyback" tax. Some adjustments could be made to smooth out the usual ups and down of the economy.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
RonC
RonC
Joined: Jan 18, 2010
  • Threads: 40
  • Posts: 4874
April 12th, 2011 at 12:13:13 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard

Personally, I advocate a pay as you go system. On an annual basis, government spending for that year will be estimated, and all federal taxes will be adjusted to match that spending. For example, if we would need to increase taxes by 25% to pay for what the budget, then whatever you would normally pay in taxes, multiply it by 1.25. Like the Maryland "piggyback" tax. Some adjustments could be made to smooth out the usual ups and down of the economy.



That kind of plan would make the politicians accountable for the budget. So many of the numbers they provide us with are fairy tales before they even hit reality. We'll spend $1 trillion for a net savings over 15 years of $10 trillion...yeah, that is if everyone's budget projections happen just as their assumptions show they will. Does that happen? The numbers are all "cooked" and they know it. They can't even spell honesty in most cases...
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 221
  • Posts: 11677
April 12th, 2011 at 5:07:51 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard

Personally, I advocate a pay as you go system. On an annual basis, government spending for that year will be estimated, and all federal taxes will be adjusted to match that spending. For example, if we would need to increase taxes by 25% to pay for what the budget, then whatever you would normally pay in taxes, multiply it by 1.25. Like the Maryland "piggyback" tax. Some adjustments could be made to smooth out the usual ups and down of the economy.



To make that work we would need to get rid of the progressive tax system and have a flat tax for everybody at the same rate. If this system were in use right not the top earners would be paying over 50% in Federal Income Tax alone and the bottom 50% would still be paying virtually nothing. A downward spiral in the economy would follow.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
ItsCalledSoccer
ItsCalledSoccer
Joined: Aug 30, 2010
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 735
April 12th, 2011 at 6:33:03 AM permalink
Quote: RonC

That kind of plan would make the politicians accountable for the budget. So many of the numbers they provide us with are fairy tales before they even hit reality. We'll spend $1 trillion for a net savings over 15 years of $10 trillion...yeah, that is if everyone's budget projections happen just as their assumptions show they will. Does that happen? The numbers are all "cooked" and they know it. They can't even spell honesty in most cases...



One of the biggest local political topics here in Texas is the debate to legalize casino gambling. One of the points that the proponents use is that it will increase tax revenues to the state that are now being lost to neighboring states like Louisiana, Oklahoma, and New Mexico. The prevailing opinion assigned to the opponents talk more about the morality and crime associated with gambling.

I have no doubt that it would increase revenues, and I have no doubt that it would cause an increase in crime (as there would be with the introduction of any new industry).

Personally, I oppose it. Not on moral grounds, though. I oppose it because it's just another step in the "piggification" of government. I think this is the major reason for opposition ... although you wouldn't know it from reading newspapers. They put the Texas version of Terry Jones out there as the main opinion against, and it's just not true.

Texas is run about as good as any state out there, and that bears out in the state economy's relatively excellent performance and the in-migration that, among other things, gave the state four new congressional seats in 2012. So, if there's any state whose government can be "trusted" (however far you extend that trust), it would be Texas.

But I'm not in favor of giving it more money to spend. Government can't keep searching for new sources of revenues, especially in Texas's case where it's doing pretty damn good with what it already gets. Increasing government tempts it to overreach - see also the federal government. Texas is doing just fine, and the states that depend heavily on casino gambling aren't (excluding Nevada, which is not doing well, but gambling is embedded in its history, so it gets an exception in my mind).

So whatever gambling is the answer for, it doesn't appear to the answer to gaining revenues that make a state a better place.
ItsCalledSoccer
ItsCalledSoccer
Joined: Aug 30, 2010
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 735
April 12th, 2011 at 6:44:10 AM permalink
Quote: boymimbo

The Federal Government's outlays have grown from 1.789 trillion in 2000 to 3.456 trillion in 2010. (In 2007, it was 2.728 trillion so you can't blame Obama for all of this).... so a 93.2 percent growth in Federal Government outlays in 10 years. Revenue grew from 2.025 trillion to 2.163 trillion (2007 it was 2.568 trillion) in the same period. All figures in 2005 dollars. Source is taxpolicycenter.org.

YOU CAN BLAME OBAMA for not taking drastic measures when he took over.

So I would agree that the Federal Government has gotten WAY too big. Bring spending down to 2.5 trillion. Increase taxes to match. Continue shrinking government and bring taxes down. You need surpluses to pay down some of the massive debt and the only way to do that is to balance the budget, bring the government down in size and increase GDP through financial policy and growth. That means massive layoffs in the government and cutting back on social programs, including medicare. Increase the FICA tax and increase the limits. Increase Social Security tax (why the government cut 2 percent (17 percent of revenue) this year from Social Security tax this year is unfathomable) and increase the limits. More tax brackets on the rich (get rid of the Bush tax cuts). End the stimulus. Rework ObamaCare. Remove red tape from business so that they can operate.

No one will be happy. But when you've been living on the government teat and reaping the benefits of a free government credit card, the party has to end.



I think there's little doubt that all this spending is attributable to both parties. But the first place you should look is the composition of the House of Representatives, which is where spending bills MUST originate. So, when you cite 2007, you're citing a Democratic House, which is most greatly to blame.

Presidents have influence in the debate, and veto power. But vetoing a budget is not something a President wants to get in the habit of doing. (Obama does it to his peril, but given his lack of leadership in the most recent budget debate, I would not assume he would take any greater role in the upcoming one and will sign what hits his desk.) I think the Republican congress tried to give the President (then Clinton) line-item veto power in the 90s, but the senate Democratic minority wouldn't debate it.

Now, in the 109th congress, you had spending and squirrelly practices to a degree never seen before in American history ... a congress with Democrat supermajorities and a Democrat president. The result? Democrats lost the House in a historic defeat.

So ... Democrats 1) are in power when the spending frenzy begins; 2) won't give the President line-item veto authority, even when the President was a Democrat; and 3) preside over historic increases in federal spending. It would appear that, until Democrats change their collective attitude towards spending, they cannot be trusted with control of the House.

(Yes, Republicans aren't innocent. But they are not the main perpetrators, either.)
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 221
  • Posts: 11677
April 12th, 2011 at 7:09:29 AM permalink
Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Presidents have influence in the debate, and veto power. But vetoing a budget is not something a President wants to get in the habit of doing. (Obama does it to his peril, but given his lack of leadership in the most recent budget debate, I would not assume he would take any greater role in the upcoming one and will sign what hits his desk.) I think the Republican congress tried to give the President (then Clinton) line-item veto power in the 90s, but the senate Democratic minority wouldn't debate it.



Republicans had control of both houses 1994-2006 and did in fact give Clinton the line-item veto. He used it once then it was overturned by the Supreme Court. No idea who brought the suit, probably some liberal group upset w/spending cuts.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1317
  • Posts: 21617
April 12th, 2011 at 7:43:08 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

A downward spiral in the economy would follow.



That will happen eventually no matter what we do. The longer it takes for us to wake up and live within our means the worse it will be.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
kenarman
kenarman
Joined: Nov 22, 2009
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 966
April 12th, 2011 at 8:09:47 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard

That will happen eventually no matter what we do. The longer it takes for us to wake up and live within our means the worse it will be.



I have to agree with you Wiz. I think the US has reached a tipping point that has not been noticed and/or accepted by the majority of the population and is in a very serious financial position. Given that I am Canadian which most regular of members know I expect to get some pretty strong reaction for the following statement which I will revive from the 70's. "Americans need to start acting less like Romans and more like Italians."
Be careful when you follow the masses, the M is sometimes silent.
SFB
SFB
Joined: Dec 20, 2010
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 203
April 12th, 2011 at 8:26:10 AM permalink
Its already spiralling.

And will get worse.

It was stupid to cut the Social Security tax 2 per cent.

Your gonna have to raise taxes. Then you have to cut some spending.

Pentagon>> 300 billion a year.
Medicare>>60 billion a year
Social Security>>> 200 billion a year
The rest of the federal budget>>>> 100 Billion

Increase taxes about 400 billion a year.

That closes your structual deficit.

And LEAVE IT THERE. You would be paying down the debt at the rate of 100-150 billion a year within five years.

Also, interest rates are about to climb. When the rate that the federal government is paying for thier debt climbs past 4%, all of our rates get into 7% plus. The servicing the debt number will swallow the budget as well. However, IF the US Government gets to positive cash flow on an annual basis, then interest rates WILL decline.

It took 150 years to get to 14 trillion in federal debt. It can take 100 years to "get rid of it" You will NEVER get rid of it. But you CAN get it to 50-60% of GDP in 20 years.

And that's a sustainable budget.

SFB

  • Jump to: