Poll

10 votes (35.71%)
18 votes (64.28%)

28 members have voted

Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1317
  • Posts: 21590
July 18th, 2011 at 10:32:02 PM permalink
Quote: s2dbaker

that sounds a lot like that crazy liberal Nancy Pelosi scheme called Pay-Go. Why do you hate America?



What is so radical about a pay as you go policy? Currently we spend 60% more than we collect in tax revenue (source). That is not sustainable. If you suddenly raised taxes 60% there would be real political will to cut spending. It has become too easy to keep borrowing, for the next generation to pay the tab.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
crazyiam
crazyiam
Joined: Feb 5, 2010
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 44
July 18th, 2011 at 11:25:50 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

What is so radical about a pay as you go policy? Currently we spend 60% more than we collect in tax revenue (source). That is not sustainable. If you suddenly raised taxes 60% there would be real political will to cut spending. It has become too easy to keep borrowing, for the next generation to pay the tab.



Other than being bad economics nothing. We have a long run budget problem and a short term recision problem. Once the economy picks back up the difference will be more like 30%. Of course that's still not good. Take out some war spending, a bit more efficiency and tweak a few programs and things will be OK.

Austerity leads to less revenue and prolongs the slump. So we need a long term solution now that doesn't involve cuts for a few years.

In short commit to surpluses when times are good and deficits when they are bad to smooth things out through the ups and down.
timberjim
timberjim
Joined: Dec 5, 2009
  • Threads: 33
  • Posts: 398
July 19th, 2011 at 2:46:09 AM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

The economic conservatives in this country have long argued for the relaxation of market regulations, restrictions that could have prevented banks from giving mortgages to homebuyers who could clearly not afford to repay them.



I have worked in the development business for over 20 years. Banks that did not lend to these people were acused of "redlining" and threatened with the loss of their charter. The government (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) readily bought up this paper. No one that I have worked with would have invested in these without a ready market for all the paper.

This started under Clinton and continued under Bush. When people finally realized that this was a problem waiting to explode, remedies were proposed. Who lead the oposition? Barney Frank, whose live in boyfriend was making a fortune as an executive with Fannie Mae! Our politicians, once again, lining their pockets at our expense.
rxwine
rxwine
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
  • Threads: 163
  • Posts: 9557
July 19th, 2011 at 3:14:15 AM permalink
It's all been a carefully crafted plot to make money in gold.
Quasimodo? Does that name ring a bell?
odiousgambit
odiousgambit
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
  • Threads: 300
  • Posts: 8276
July 19th, 2011 at 3:17:33 AM permalink
Quote: timberjim

This started under Clinton and continued under Bush.



This is exactly right. You can't find a better example of the terrible danger of allowing liberal ideas to come to fruition. The people in the lending industries knew it was insanity. Some are now calling what has happened "the affordable mortgage depression."
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 221
  • Posts: 11677
July 19th, 2011 at 3:29:31 AM permalink
Quote: s2dbaker

the rate that we (yes i'm very well off too) were paying under Clinton/Gore would be fine.



Any person is free to send a "gift to the Treasury" on their tax form or just send a check. Why don't you show how great higher taxes are and send in the cut you received? I'm sure your accountant could give you the number.

Liberals are so funny. Let gasoline go up 10% and they want hearings. Let there be a call for taxes (usually someone else's) to be raised 10% and they think it will somehow help the economy.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
s2dbaker
s2dbaker
Joined: Jun 10, 2010
  • Threads: 51
  • Posts: 3259
July 19th, 2011 at 6:33:19 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Any person is free to send a "gift to the Treasury" on their tax form or just send a check. Why don't you show how great higher taxes are and send in the cut you received? I'm sure your accountant could give you the number.

Liberals are so funny. Let gasoline go up 10% and they want hearings. Let there be a call for taxes (usually someone else's) to be raised 10% and they think it will somehow help the economy.

I don't see your point here. How can I, alone, by sending a gift to the treasury of a few thousand dollars, eliminate the deficit?
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
boymimbo
boymimbo
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
July 19th, 2011 at 6:39:23 AM permalink
Liberals and Conservatives aside, a budget should be as balanced as possible at all time.

Federal, Local , and State Government spending per capita in 1992 was 9,216 / year. In 2000 it was 11,483. In 2008 it was 17,586. Revenue was 8,228 in 1992, 13,026 in 2004, and 15,502 in 2008.

You can't go on year over year increasing spending without increasing revenue. You increase revenue by increasing the GDP so that more taxes are naturally paid or raise the tax rate to bring in more revenue.

Clinton was successful in raising revenue through an increase in the GDP. He was lucky that there was a .com boom at the time and that the world's economy was humming along. GWB, not so lucky, but he and his congress and senate pushed through major spending initiatives (that had nothing to do with 9/11) without the supporting revenue which ended with a major bailout. Obama and the accompanying sentate and congress is completely reckless, so far.

To generalize, Republicans have got to accept that raising taxes is a necessary evil and Democrats have got to accept a trillion dollars or so in spending cuts. Will the economy shrink as a result of the cuts in spending: absolutely. But the monetary policy that is currently in place is absolutely unsustainable.

The only way that the united states will get out of your mess, I believe, is to let people solve their own problems, and to put in the necessary incentives for new industries to grow. Despite China and India's advances in leaps and bounds, there is no better place to start an idea and bring it to fruition than the United States (well, except Canada).
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
buzzpaff
buzzpaff
Joined: Mar 8, 2011
  • Threads: 112
  • Posts: 5328
July 19th, 2011 at 6:39:26 AM permalink
You could send that money to me and with my roulette system, I could run it up to enough to erase the national debt!!
Do you need my mailing address ? ?
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
July 19th, 2011 at 7:17:38 AM permalink
Quote: boymimbo

To generalize, Republicans have got to accept that raising taxes is a necessary evil and Democrats have got to accept a trillion dollars or so in spending cuts. Will the economy shrink as a result of the cuts in spending: absolutely. But the monetary policy that is currently in place is absolutely unsustainable.


The conclusion is correct, but it's not as simple as Republicans vs. Democrats. Most sensible Republicans do understand that taxation to pay for spending is a necessary evil, but the dogmatic fringe controlling the national stage right now doesn't accept that. Similarly, both Democrats and Republicans are going to have to accept massive spending cuts, but the easiest place to find that money is not in nickel-and-dime projects, it's in the Big Three entitlements that nobody is willing to touch. I particularly like this example by Philip Greenspun:

Quote: Philip Greenspun

We have a family that is spending $38,200 per year. The family’s income is $21,700 per year. The family adds $16,500 in credit card debt every year in order to pay its bills. After a long and difficult debate among family members, keeping in mind that it was not going to be possible to borrow $16,500 every year forever, the parents and children agreed that a $380/year premium cable subscription could be terminated. So now the family will have to borrow only $16,120 per year.

from Philip Greenspun's blog.

Sometimes you have to stop looking for ways to cut corners on little things and admit you either (a) have to move into a smaller house or (b) make a *lot* more money. Congress hasn't shown a willingness to do either, alone or in combination, and there's no indication that repeated fiddling with the tiny edges of the budget will make any difference whatsoever.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563

  • Jump to: