Poll

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

16 members have voted

rdw4potus
rdw4potus
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 7042
April 12th, 2011 at 10:40:04 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman


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.



Just out of curiosity: What makes the space program a better investment than the butterfly mating research?
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
SFB
SFB
Joined: Dec 20, 2010
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 203
April 12th, 2011 at 10:40:50 AM permalink
Soccer:

This line:
Quote: Soccer

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.



Ok, make it 200b. We SPEND alot more on defense than we get. And contrary to what you might beleive, I am a hawk in many respects. But you gotta spend that which you HAVE. And we don't have it. There is no free lunch.

You then mention:
Quote: Soccer

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.



Yes, they have contributed. And the vast majority have been paid out what they contributed. And it IS a social contract. We work to fund those not working. We can't keep that promise that was made when 12-14 people were working to everyone who was going to collect, (SS in the 1950-60's), to the almost 5 to 1 now, and 3 to 1 in about ten years. Medicare was only supposed to cost 5b a year in the 60's. A small price.... It will grow to over $100b a year, plus its growing at 7-8% a year.

In 1983, they changed the retirement age to 67 from 65 on me. You too, maybe. They will change it on my son, to probably 69 or 70. And Medicare will start at 66, or 67. Or they might put a cap on it. You can just allow that spending to GO, GO, GO.

Then you mention the other programs of the government
Quote: Soccer

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%.



If only there was 75% waste. I think the President ought to be allowed to shoot at random any two federal employees every year. That would clean some things up too. However, Which federal programs would you cut that equal that 75%? I mean, you just took the page from the 1040 Booklet, which does not detail all the programs, But go done the list and zero out that which you feel is unnecessary. I think you will be hard pressed to get to that number. It seems real easy in the thoretical, but real hard when you get to the ground.

And AZ is right. I would prefer if you or he paid the tax, and not me. If I was King of Tax, I would exempt all CPA's everywhere, from ever paying tax. But I am not in charge.

I don't care WHAT the Federal Government decides to charge for taxes. I just want them to charge a rate that will allow them to cover what they want to spend. Not missing the mark by 1/3, If they decided to zero out all the social programs, I am fine with that. Make the DECISION. And then GET THERE.

What the Government decides to charge for taxes you, AZ, me and the Wiz, will pay. Of that I have NO doubt. IF ithe tax is calc'ed out to $1,350 more, you will pay it, just like I would. I may not be happy, I may not be able to go to Vegas, but thats what the form says. So, you pay it. Otherwise, if you don't want to pay that, you have to make a decision. Stay, go, cheat, or whatever.

SFB
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 221
  • Posts: 11677
April 12th, 2011 at 10:44:50 AM permalink
Quote: rdw4potus

Just out of curiosity: What makes the space program a better investment than the butterfly mating research?



The thousands of tech breakthrus and practical products that the space program has delivered. Dollar for dollar the space program is about the most effective program ever.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
SFB
SFB
Joined: Dec 20, 2010
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 203
April 12th, 2011 at 10:44:55 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

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.



AZ:

I guess you missed this part of my post:

Quote: SFB

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



SFB
rdw4potus
rdw4potus
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 7042
April 12th, 2011 at 10:45:58 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

So, YOU (and not just "the rich") are willing to come up with $1350 per year.



I don't pay the same amount in taxes as the rich do now, why would my share of the increase be the same as theirs? Doesn't it make more sense to apply some sort of progression to your theoretical per-capita tax increase?
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
SFB
SFB
Joined: Dec 20, 2010
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 203
April 12th, 2011 at 10:48:36 AM permalink
AZ:

The Republicans had the House, and the Senate, and even President for 4 years, and they still didn't cut these programs.

They are NOT interested in cutting them. Only using them for political leverage.

You give me Planned Parenthood, and NPR, and I will give you your rockets...Deal?

That is how it works.

SFB
rdw4potus
rdw4potus
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 7042
April 12th, 2011 at 10:50:39 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

The thousands of tech breakthrus and practical products that the space program has delivered. Dollar for dollar the space program is about the most effective program ever.



Thousands of practical products? Name 10. Actually, here. I'll list medical breakthroughs that have come as a result of government-funded terrestrial plant and animal studies, you list practical products that have achieved commercial success as a result of the space program, and we'll see which list is longer.
"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 10:51:27 AM permalink
Quote: rdw4potus

I don't pay the same amount in taxes as the rich do now, why would my share of the increase be the same as theirs? Doesn't it make more sense to apply some sort of progression to your theoretical per-capita tax increase?



No, it does not make more sense. The system is already highly progressive. The bottom 50% are paying almost nothing. They need to help at least as much as those paying 40%+ of their income. When the load gets more even then there will be fewer people voting for politicians promising "free health care."

Taxes are due this week, are you going to make a "Gift to the Treasury" on your 1040 of $1350?
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 10:52:51 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

This governmnet can't even keep the space program (a rare good government program) going. Sheeese.



Well we agree there, I wish they would spend more money on the space program and less money on bombs.
thecesspit
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
April 12th, 2011 at 11:05:15 AM permalink
Quote: RonDiaz

Well we agree there, I wish they would spend more money on the space program and less money on bombs.



It's not my government, but general spending on science (be it space program or mating habits of butterflies) is (to me) a good way for the government to spend money, as a well funded R&D sector that allows blue-skies research helps produce new and interesting products and services in the long term, and keeps a high-tech industry going. The US isn't going to be able to compete on cheap labour/mass-produce industry (and nor does it... it's industrial base is based on higher quality, limited edition, high precision stuff).

It's bit unfair to compare a large wide-ranging program (space) with a single instance of a biology program (mating of butterflies). The latter might be part of a long term investigation of the life cycles of insects, which in turn could be(*) useful research on pollination of plants... which is kinda important for agriculture.

(*) Could be is all you can often tell about open-ended research. Some ends up being interesting but not useful, some ends up being useful but not interesting. The latter should then get taken up by private industry to turn into products and services. Private Industry tends to be less willing to fund generic scientific research (once it gets into the more specific, sure, such funding occurs). And you need trained scientists available who've cut their teeth on more open research to help generate a useful Science and Technology base in a country.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829

  • Jump to: