Poll

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

16 members have voted

Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1317
  • Posts: 21617
April 12th, 2011 at 8:28:19 AM permalink
Quote: kenarman

"Americans need to start acting less like Romans and more like Italians."



I agree.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 221
  • Posts: 11677
April 12th, 2011 at 8:34:09 AM permalink
Quote: SFB


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.



So, YOU (and not just "the rich") are willing to come up with $1350 per year. And the same for each and every kid you might have? Beccause that is what it is going to take per person. I find people wanting tax increases usually want either the rich or corporations to somehow pay.

I can't take that kind of pay cut. Cut spending. Only. 24% of GDP us a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
RonDiaz
RonDiaz
Joined: Jun 26, 2010
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 56
April 12th, 2011 at 9:08:07 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

So, YOU (and not just "the rich") are willing to come up with $1350 per year. And the same for each and every kid you might have? Beccause that is what it is going to take per person. I find people wanting tax increases usually want either the rich or corporations to somehow pay.

I can't take that kind of pay cut. Cut spending. Only. 24% of GDP us a spending problem, not a revenue problem.



I will take a $3600 a year pay cut as part of the Scott Walker slashfest of 2011. And assuredly I make less than most of you folk. If it can be argued I deserved and can absorb a $3600 a year pay cut, $1350 should be no thang.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 221
  • Posts: 11677
April 12th, 2011 at 9:56:57 AM permalink
Quote: RonDiaz

I will take a $3600 a year pay cut as part of the Scott Walker slashfest of 2011. And assuredly I make less than most of you folk. If it can be argued I deserved and can absorb a $3600 a year pay cut, $1350 should be no thang.



I don't know about you, but I can't afford $1350 a year. And I'm sure those with kids can't afford many times that. We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. We are spending 25% more in relation to GDP than just a few years ago. But everytime a reasonable cut is proposed someone on the left accuses republicans of killing women, children, or seniros.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
rdw4potus
rdw4potus
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 7042
April 12th, 2011 at 10:06:27 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

I don't quite get why but am going by history. I'll leave it up to someone with a degree in economics to explain the details if there is one around.



I think the answer is easier than you think. Surpluses are the result of government over collection. The government spends less efficiently than individuals. Efficient spending grows the economy and helps avoid/mitigate financial downturns. So those downturns are more likely to occur when the wrong entity is holding the excess wealth.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 221
  • Posts: 11677
April 12th, 2011 at 10:11:41 AM permalink
Quote: rdw4potus

I think the answer is easier than you think. Surpluses are the result of government over collection. The government spends less efficiently than individuals. Efficient spending grows the economy and helps avoid/mitigate financial downturns. So those downturns are more likely to occur when the wrong entity is holding the excess wealth.



Good, but holding the wealth and not spending it is the thing. If spending stays constant why does the decrease in net debt cause the recession/depression? As wealth is returned via paid off bonds you would think the economy would do better as spending and investment is redirected from government spending to something more efficient for the economy. (ie: almost any other spending/investment)
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 10:13:43 AM permalink
Quote: SFB

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



While I'm for cutting waste, and there's little doubt that there's some waste in the Pentagon, it never made sense to me to over-cut defense at the expense of social programs. Two main reasons.

First, the practical. According to that same page in the 1040 instructions, national defense, veterans, and foreign affairs make up 22% of the outlays, or about $773 billion. A cut of $300 billion (39%) would ABSOLUTELY DECIMATE our ability to defend ourselves. There is waste there, but there is not nearly 40% waste.

OTOH, social security, medicare, and other retirement makes up 34% of the outlays, or about $1.2 trillion. A cut of $260 billion (22%) doesn't decimate it, but it would, basically, amount to "stealing" from those who have contributed their whole lives.

BUT ... social programs and physical, human, and community development make up about 36% of outlays, or about $1.3 trillion. Cutting $100 billion (8%) is a veritable drop in the bucket. There is waste in this area, and it is a HELLUVA lot more than 8% worth. I think this is the section to start in, and the one to make the most cuts. If I had to assign a percentage, I would put it at about 75% waste, meaning, if I were King of the Budget, I would cut this section by 75%.

(The remaining outlays go to law enforcement and general government (2%) and interest on the debt (5%).)

And, AZDuffman's question is legitimate ... are YOU, not some ethereal rich guy, but YOU, SFB, willing to pay the extra few thousand in raised taxes? And that assumes higher tax rate = greater revenue, which has historically been a false assumption. I always thought you could answer that question for someone by checking out their tax return. Do you already contribute the extra few thousand? No? Then why do you want others to do it for you? That's upside-down thinking.

(NB: It is interesting that some of the loudest advocates of social programs have the lowest pct. contribution to charity. Obama, Biden, and Pelosi were all around 0.5% - 1.0% before taking power. Obama went up to something like 15%, which is terrific, but Biden and Pelosi are still around 1%.)

Second, the theoretical. The Constitution is a shell, protecting what's inside. The people inside are protected only insofar as the shell is defended from the outside. If the shell breaks, nobody's protected. Thus, there is a HUGE interest in protecting it, with (to a limit) money being no object.

(NB2: You can't defend the shell from the inside. That's why, to me, it makes sense to not worry about protections afforded inside when it comes to protecting the thing. In other words, trying terrorists at all, rather than just killing them, is more than we *should* do. Constitutional trials within the shell are not applicable to people trying to break it.)
SFB
SFB
Joined: Dec 20, 2010
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 203
April 12th, 2011 at 10:15:45 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

I don't know about you, but I can't afford $1350 a year. And I'm sure those with kids can't afford many times that. We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. We are spending 25% more in relation to GDP than just a few years ago. But everytime a reasonable cut is proposed someone on the left accuses republicans of killing women, children, or seniros.



AZ:

If you can't afford that, then your not paying much taxes anyway.

What's the line? "Don't tax you, Don't tax me, tax that guy behind the tree?" There are no more trees left.

HOW they get the $400b is for them to figure out. They have been FIGURING for years, and that is why we are were we are at. They DO NOT want to cut, and they DO NOT want to tax. Both Dems and Repubs. And you end up with 1/3 less revenue for what you want to spend.

You can't have 50% of folks not pay, and then have the other 50% of folks pay the rest of income taxes. And maybe you adjust the corporate tax, and SS taxes, and Medicare taxes, and then see what is happening.

It can't happen overnight, but its got to happen. It is unsustainable otherwise.

SFB
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 221
  • Posts: 11677
April 12th, 2011 at 10:24:49 AM permalink
Quote: SFB

AZ:

If you can't afford that, then your not paying much taxes anyway.

What's the line? "Don't tax you, Don't tax me, tax that guy behind the tree?" There are no more trees left.

HOW they get the $400b is for them to figure out. They have been FIGURING for years, and that is why we are were we are at. They DO NOT want to cut, and they DO NOT want to tax. Both Dems and Repubs. And you end up with 1/3 less revenue for what you want to spend.

You can't have 50% of folks not pay, and then have the other 50% of folks pay the rest of income taxes. And maybe you adjust the corporate tax, and SS taxes, and Medicare taxes, and then see what is happening.



What we have now is the top 50% paying 96% of the income taxes.

But you have not answered the question that two people have now asked.

Since you do not seem to want spending cuts, how much more do YOU (not the rich guy across town) want to pay in addition next year?


As for me, I want spending cut. Why I should be asked to pay more to fund NPR, Planned Parenthood, research into mating habits of butterflies, and all other kinds of nonsense is beyond me. This governmnet can't even keep the space program (a rare good government program) going. Sheeese.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
rdw4potus
rdw4potus
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 7042
April 12th, 2011 at 10:37:54 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Good, but holding the wealth and not spending it is the thing. If spending stays constant why does the decrease in net debt cause the recession/depression? As wealth is returned via paid off bonds you would think the economy would do better as spending and investment is redirected from government spending to something more efficient for the economy. (ie: almost any other spending/investment)



I think the increased likelihood/severity of a recession is exactly because spending stays constant. If the government didn't have the excess money, spending would have increased slightly. Since a recession is defined as 3 consecutive quarters of negative growth, that's slightly more likely to occur as a result of the inefficiency.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett

  • Jump to: