Originally posted by sh76 Everyone agrees the federal budget deficit is insane. But how to fix it? Dems want only take hikes and long term increasing spending (with short term insignificant "show" cuts). Republicans want no tax cuts at all and just slash and burn social spending.
Why can't these idiots realize that BOTH are needed? Taxes have to be raised at least to Clinton levels a ...[text shortened]... If up, great.
If not, try again.
Do this twice a month until you pass something.
Excellent idea! This makes too much sense for our lawmakers though. Both sides are too pig headed to see the big picture. We need spending cuts AND tax hikes.
Originally posted by Metal Brain Why no discussion about military spending being cut in a serious way? Why are we still calling it defense spending and not offense spending?
Wasn't Lyndon Johnson for guns and butter too? Inflation resulted from that madness. Historical Deja vu.
Dramatic changes in military strength tends to lead to war.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung We don't have to get involved. Remove the USA and you have a violent power vaccuum.
Yes, the US spending more on their military than all the other nations in the world combined has certainly brought on an era where war is almost completely unknown.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung What do you think the, say, Navy should cut funding for?
Almost everything. We don't need anywhere near all those nuclear armed submarines and we could get by with mothballing about half our aircraft carriers. That would be a good start.
Originally posted by sh76 Everyone agrees the federal budget deficit is insane. But how to fix it? Dems want only take hikes and long term increasing spending (with short term insignificant "show" cuts). Republicans want no tax cuts at all and just slash and burn social spending.
Why can't these idiots realize that BOTH are needed? Taxes have to be raised at least to Clinton levels a
If up, great.
If not, try again.
Do this twice a month until you pass something.
The problem is the two options are not morally equivalent. Let's say the US government is a person who spends all his money and then has to ask for more.
Reduce Spending: "OK, we will monitor the amount of money he spends and put him on a budget so he doesn't spend as much."
Raise Taxes: "But we will also give him more money."
The first element makes sense. The second doesn't. It is all about incentives -- why reward irresponsible behavior?
Edit: I could care less how much money "the rich" have as long as it isn't affecting my ability to buy beans and franks. As long as I can trade freely and get what I can afford when I want, as long as I have my liberty, and as long as neither justice nor votes are bought -- I have very little interest in The Lives of the Rich and Famous. If the rich pull their weight in taxes proportional to their worth, that should be enough.
Originally posted by spruce112358 The problem is the two options are not morally equivalent. Let's say the US government is a person who spends all his money and then has to ask for more.
[b]Reduce Spending: "OK, we will monitor the amount of money he spends and put him on a budget so he doesn't spend as much."
Raise Taxes: "But we will also give him more money."
Th he rich pull their weight in taxes proportional to their worth, that should be enough.[/b]
One large flaw in your post...the rich DO NOT pull there weight in taxes proportional to there worth! The rich have a miltitude of tax loopholes, which allow them to defer, greatly reduce, or eliminate there tax burdens altogether.
I'm sure you don't interest yourself in the lives of the rich and famous, but you might interest yourself in the fact that the rich often shift there tax burdens to you because tax laws allow them to.
You might think about this while you're eating your beans and franks!!
BTW, where in the ##@@ did the term "up in arms" come from? As you say, I'm rightly up in arms but have no idea how this happened or even how to get out of this position.
Originally posted by bill718 One large flaw in your post...the rich DO NOT pull there weight in taxes proportional to there worth! The rich have a miltitude of tax loopholes, which allow them to defer, greatly reduce, or eliminate there tax burdens altogether.
I'm sure you don't interest yourself in the lives of the rich and famous, but you might interest yourself in the fact that t ...[text shortened]... aws allow them to.
You might think about this while you're eating your beans and franks!!
Well then that might be a point of common ground.
I am against raising taxes on the rich or anybody else just to create more revenue for the government. Giving a drunk more whiskey doesn't solve anything.
I am 100% FOR closing tax loopholes and simplifying the tax code. If the rich pay more thereby, so be it. I have no issue with that.
Originally posted by spruce112358 Well then that might be a point of common ground.
I am against raising taxes on the rich or anybody else just to create more revenue for the government. Giving a drunk more whiskey doesn't solve anything.
I am 100% FOR closing tax loopholes and simplifying the tax code. If the rich pay more thereby, so be it. I have no issue with that.
I agree with this. The best thing to come out of the budget commission report was the proposal on taxes. That proposal would have eliminated all deductions and dropped the tax rates accordingly. It was a budget neutral plan, which means it didn't effect revenue at all.
Since we're talking long-term solutions, why not also consider a balanced budget
amendment? Of course, there could be provisions for exceptions under certain
circumstances, but I don't think the idea itself is radical.
The budget mess
08 Jun '11 16:00
Back to Top