Originally posted by vivifyI've got an idea. It took me all night to come up with this.
I didn't say taxing the rich was a "bad" move, I said it won't work miracles.
And yes, spending more than the government has needs to stop, but won't help us out of our problem; all that will do is stop our problem from growing even more. We need a solution that will reverse the mess the government has gotten itself into. Taxing the rich isn't a great ...[text shortened]... ea, but so far, it's a start. I'm still waiting for a better idea than taxing the rich.
Stop spending money we don't have. Cut the size of government. Have fewer government workers. Move existing government workers under a certain age - and an age higher than most of them would be happy with - to a defined contributiion plan. Includes police and firefighters. Move the collection age for those pensions to 65. Scale back the mission of government to defense, police, fire, roads, ambulance, tax collection, and those departments that distribute services to the poor. And raise taxes. On everybody. Raise them on the rich (like me) more. Decide that we will do less on defense and cut the defense budget.
Less politically viable, but just as necessary: ban collective bargaining for public employees. Drastically scale back pensions and benefits for elected officials at all levels. Public service is an honor and a privilege, not a means of self-enrichment.
There. There's your plan. Done. Something for everybody to hate.
Originally posted by normbenignKrugman: "Great! We did a study of registered voters using just the words 'spend' and 'save'. We found that more people prefer the world 'spend' -- so we made that the single plank to our party! The Spend Party! SPENNNNDDDDDINNNNNGGGGG!!!!!!!"
How's that been working out in practice?
Originally posted by sasquatch672This is good. But again, it won't actually reverse the mess that we're in. It'll just help keep the debt from getting worse. The only way to actually reverse the debt, is to have some sort of funds to pay the debt with. The only source of funds right now, unfortunately, are the wealthy.
I've got an idea. It took me all night to come up with this.
Stop spending money we don't have. Cut the size of government. Have fewer government workers. Move existing government workers under a certain age - and an age higher than most of them would be happy with - to a defined contributiion plan. Includes police and firefighters. Move the ...[text shortened]... ns of self-enrichment.
There. There's your plan. Done. Something for everybody to hate.
Originally posted by vivifyYou are a scary person. Both in your lack of knowledge and in your worldview.
This is good. But again, it won't actually reverse the mess that we're in. It'll just help keep the debt from getting worse. The only way to actually reverse the debt, is to have some sort of funds to pay the debt with. The only source of funds right now, unfortunately, are the wealthy.
Originally posted by sasquatch672Clinton didn't have to deal with sixteen trillion in debt and record-high gas prices. Plus, the U.S. dollar was worth more then.
Novel idea. Spend less then you take in. Kind of liek what you hopefully do? It's that simple. Clinton managed it.
Again, your ideas are very good. But we're at a point where we need to start to chip away at the debt, rather than just control it. We need surplus that will we can use to reduce it.
Am i wrong?
- Joined
- 09 Apr 08
- Moves
- 19950
Originally posted by vivifyFirst, let me say I totally agree with you that we must chip away at the debt. What I don't quite understand, however, is why you dismiss the idea that spending cuts can help chip away at the debt?
Clinton didn't have to deal with sixteen trillion in debt and record-high gas prices. Plus, the U.S. dollar was worth more then.
Again, your ideas are very good. But we're at a point where we need to start to chip away at the debt, rather than just control it. We need surplus that will we can use to reduce it.
Am i wrong?
In my own case, I have a mortgage on a house which is a debt not unlike the national debt, apart from the fact that mine is significantly smaller - thankfully 🙂
I have a personal budget where I monitor my expenses and keep them at a level much less than my salary (income). This allows me to accumulate a savings and I allocate a portion of that savings to making mortgage payments to reduce my debt.
If the government only cuts their spending to the point where it equalizes with their tax revenue then I would agree with you that it's not chipping away at the debt. However, if the government cut enough spending that they began to accumulate a surplus then either a portion of that surplus or the entire surplus could be payed towards the national debt. This provides a means of chipping away at the debt.
3 edits
Originally posted by TheSurgeonI don't dismiss the idea, I just don't think that alone is enough right now. I think before Obama took office, which was about five trillion dollars ago, spending cuts alone could've been somewhat plausable. But we're in such a desperate state, that we need to reduce the debt ASAP. The U.S. already has a lower credit rating, because of the debt (from Triple A to just Double A).
First, let me say I totally agree with you that we must chip away at the debt. What I don't quite understand, however, is why you dismiss the idea that spending cuts can help chip away at the debt?
Yes: we need to enact spending cuts. But in addition, we need some sort of surplus to use, because the debt is a monster just waiting to eat this nation alive.
If we can get the debt back to down to five trillion, then we can forget about taxing the rich, and just rely on spending cuts. But as it is now, the rich need to step in, before the debt causes an ecconomic collapse, and all their money is just worthless paper.
- Joined
- 09 Apr 08
- Moves
- 19950
Originally posted by vivifyOk, I understand where you are coming from and I agree we need to try everything we can do reduce that debt quickly. I just have two concerns about the 'tax the rich' proposal:
I don't dismiss the idea, I just don't think that alone is enough right now. I think before Obama took office, which was about five trillion dollars ago, spending cuts alone could've been somewhat plausable. But we're in such a desperate state, that we need to reduce the debt ASAP. The U.S. already has a lower credit rating, because of the debt (from Tripl ...[text shortened]... , before the debt causes an ecconomic collapse, and all their money is just worthless paper.
1. If we don't first balance the budget we have so that we aren't spending more than we are taking in then there is a very high risk that higher taxes on the Rich will just be allocated to additional spending initiatives rather than earmarked for the national debt. They would have to establish some kind of earmark for taxes on people over a specific income level to be allocated ONLY to the national debt to ensure that there is no mismanagement of the additional tax income.
2. As you have pointed out, the national debt is so monstrous that it's hard to imagine how to make a dent in it. That being said, I'm having a hard time imagining how high we would need to tax the wealthy to make such a dent. I'd have to see the math done on this before I could agree that this method would have any significant impact because by my estimations you would have to confiscate all their money to make an immediate dent in the debt, but I'm willing to be proven wrong if the math can be proven to work out.
- Joined
- 09 Apr 08
- Moves
- 19950
1 edit
Just a wild thought to consider, but what if the government setup a national debt donation service that was regulated to ensure any contributions sent to this fund was allocated ONLY to the national debt.
If Americans were guaranteed that any money they contribute via this service would go to the national debt would their be enough pride left in America to cause a spark of contributions. Would some wealthy people be inclined of their own volition to contribute a donation knowing that their money isn't going to be mismanaged and is used for this sole purpose of saving our nation?
Perhaps if we appeal to Americans pride and charity they might be willing to contribute more than if they perceive the government as just trying to take their income from them without any say in the matter. This would be open to everyone and not just the wealthy and so well off middle class people might contribute an extra $500 bucks one month for example. If you engage the whole country in the process pennies add up to dimes and dimes to quarters, etc. etc.
Originally posted by vivifyOK - let me say this again.
I don't dismiss the idea, I just don't think that alone is enough right now. I think before Obama took office, which was about five trillion dollars ago, spending cuts alone could've been somewhat plausable. But we're in such a desperate state, that we need to reduce the debt ASAP. The U.S. already has a lower credit rating, because of the debt (from Tripl ...[text shortened]... , before the debt causes an ecconomic collapse, and all their money is just worthless paper.
The expiration of teh Bush tax cuts for the top 2% raises $82 billion each year. The government costs $9.7 billi8on per day to run.
Let's do some long division. Whack off the zeros, and you have:
$82/$9.7 = 8 days, 10 hours, 52 minutes.
That's how much maintenance of the government you're buying with expiring the tax cuts for the rich.
I erroneously quoted the expiry of the tax cuts for the rich as buying 45 days of government. That's if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire for everybody.
In short, there is no tax rate - none, not 100% on every American citizen - that can pay off the national debt. (We haven't even talked about the $64 trillion in Medicare and Social Security).
With me so far? This much should now be apparent.
Tax increases do very, very little to address this problem. The fact of the matter is, for twelve years, we've overspent ourselves. Bush put two wars and another massive entitlement program on a credit card. In his eight years, Bush added $4.9 trillion to the national debt. In his first three-and-a-half years, Obama added $5.3 trillion to the national debt: a rate more than twice that of Bush. That is not spin. That is fact.
That Bush was irresponsible does not excuse Obama's irresponsibility. There were ways to get Democrat goals accomplished that did not include driving Amerioa further into the abyss. But until Americans start taking responsibility for their lives and decisions, Democrats will have an inherent advantage over Republicans because they promise people things.
Originally posted by TheSurgeonIn theory, if this happened, every actor in Hollywood, George Soros, Warren Buffett, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, and the rest of the limousine liberal crowd should be happy to pour the last dime into your pot.
Just a wild thought to consider, but what if the government setup a national debt donation service that was regulated to ensure any contributions sent to this fund was allocated ONLY to the national debt.
If Americans were guaranteed that any money they contribute via this service would go to the national debt would their be enough pride left in Amer ...[text shortened]... heir money isn't going to be mismanaged and is used for this sole purpose of saving our nation?
Originally posted by TheSurgeonYou're absolutely right. A balanced budget would be the cornerstone of reducing the debt. This must be done first.
Ok, I understand where you are coming from and I agree we need to try everything we can do reduce that debt quickly. I just have two concerns about the 'tax the rich' proposal:
1. If we don't first balance the budget we have so that we aren't spending more than we are taking in then there is a very high risk that higher taxes on the Rich will just be ...[text shortened]... t in the debt, but I'm willing to be proven wrong if the math can be proven to work out.
And like I said earlier, taxing the rich won't make any miracles. I don't believe there's any way to "quickly" reduce the debt, and if there was, increased taxes on the rich isn't it. All taxing the rich would be, is a start. And you're right on something else: that this idea is ONLY good, if we can guarantee that this taxation is specifically for the debt. Otherwise, it's worthless.
By the way, that U.S. debt fund idea you have is actually an awesome one. I mean, seriously, it is. I wonder if there's some way to get this idea to spread, and get it off the ground.