Found an interesting NYTimes interactive page that let's you turn on and off various proposed tax and spending reforms in order to close the deficits through 2015 and through 2034.
Good for getting some perspective on the numbers.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?hp
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionIts my Anti-War/Clintonesque taxing solution, and I dont disincentivize property or agribusiness.
Found an interesting NYTimes interactive page that let's you turn on and off various proposed tax and spending reforms in order to close the deficits through 2015 and through 2034.
Good for getting some perspective on the numbers.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?hp
I am well balanced.
This is how I did it:-
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=03yv05qj
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 32473
Originally posted by whodeyLets have a law that forbids anyone from spending more at Christmas than they have cash available! Let's stop trucking companies from buying new trucks with loans! Let's prevent the airlines from ever buying new planes because they take years to pay them off.
Perhaps a balanced budget is something that both left and right can agree upon. If so, why not a law stating that we must have a balanced budget every year?
(After my mother's death while cleaning out her house I found curious pieces of paper from before the Reagan administration let thieves steal the assets of all the Savings and Loans in the country. These papers represented loans that her and my father took out every December to buy our Christmas presents. The interest was very low and every one of them was paid in full well before summer. Aren't credit cards a marvelous invention of rapacious bankers?)
Originally posted by whodeyBecause much as you all talk about wanting a balanced budget, you still go out and use that credit card. American politics mostly seems to consist of hypocrisy ie say one thing, do another.
Perhaps a balanced budget is something that both left and right can agree upon. If so, why not a law stating that we must have a balanced budget every year?
Originally posted by whodeyBecause that would mean there is no incentive to save in the good years, leading to frivolous spending, while in the bad years necessary programmes will have to be cut. The option to lend money gives the ability to spend when needed and pay when able, taking that away would be a very, very, very bad idea.
Perhaps a balanced budget is something that both left and right can agree upon. If so, why not a law stating that we must have a balanced budget every year?
Originally posted by TerrierJackHow are those curious pieces of paper as efficient as credit cards?
Lets have a law that forbids anyone from spending more at Christmas than they have cash available! Let's stop trucking companies from buying new trucks with loans! Let's prevent the airlines from ever buying new planes because they take years to pay them off.
(After my mother's death while cleaning out her house I found curious pieces of paper from ...[text shortened]... n full well before summer. Aren't credit cards a marvelous invention of rapacious bankers?)
4 edits
Originally posted by teleriona proposal.
Found an interesting NYTimes interactive page that let's you turn on and off various proposed tax and spending reforms in order to close the deficits through 2015 and through 2034.
Good for getting some perspective on the numbers.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?hp
Every member of Congress (and the president) must go to this website, check off whatever boxes they wish, and submit at least one balanced budget approach. Each of these would then be posted on-line for public comment.
(I would also allow members to consider proposals not listed on this website as long as the whole thing still adds up to a balanced budget. So, for eg, if a candidate sharing No1's views wanted to rely only on raising taxes on the rich, they could go with that option.)
For any who don't really agree that we need to balance the budget - they would have to check a box with a large bold statement reading "I do not believe that we need to balance the budget".
Any member failing to comply would not be paid until they have done so.
In addition, any candidates running for Congress or president would also be required to post their plan within a week or two of announcing their candidacy.
Originally posted by kmax87Mine is slightly different:
Its my Anti-War/Clintonesque taxing solution, and I dont disincentivize property or agribusiness.
I am well balanced.
This is how I did it:-
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=03yv05qj
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=fguk500s
No earmarks
No farm subsidies
Reduce the Federal Workforce
Other cuts in federal government
Reduce aid to states
Reduce nuclear, fleets, and weapons
Medicare malpractice reform
Cap medicare growth
Reduce SS for high income
Alternate measure for inflation
Eliminate loopholes, cut tax rates less
Reduce mortgage interest deduction
So 29% from tax increases, 71% from spending cuts.
Nice website!
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 32473
Originally posted by sh76The money was never as expensive as credit cards and it stayed in the community. Of course, those were the two factors that made it so vulnerable to thieves. It amazes me that people are so brainwashed now that they think they are getting a deal when they are bent over a barrel and not offered vaseline. The Savings and Loan system was pure magic. It encouraged all those principles that true citizens should hold dear: thrift, responsibility, and fellowship.
How are those curious pieces of paper as efficient as credit cards?
(As an aside, I could well be a convicted felon now. In the Reagan times I was approached by a group of people and offered a stake in a Savings and Loan! No money required! The 'money' they explained was easily printed! Needless to say my 'John Hancock' on documents would have been my undoing. The principals all served time. Of course the cash went missing and after prison the island populations rose. We are so corrupt and stupid now that we don't even attempt to prosecute thieves!?)
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 32473
Originally posted by sh76It is also curious to me that you apparently equate efficiency with how easy it is for a thief to pick your pocket.
How are those curious pieces of paper as efficient as credit cards?
My parents would get the money the same day they applied. The so-called efficiency of laying a card on a table was not only ridiculously unnecessary; it would have been positively stupid to pay for that privilege. But heck, you have money to burn no doubt. Cigars don't light themselves after all.