Page 21 of 26 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 252

Thread: Panel Chairmen Recommend Cutting Federal Spending by $200 Billion

  1. #201
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    10-18-12 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    1,268

    Re: Panel Chairmen Recommend Cutting Federal Spending by $200 Billion

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    As pointed out by this Administration border security is the responsibilty of the Federal Govt. as they sued the state of Arizona over that issue. So instead of asking that question on this forum I suggest asking your elected officials why? You will find out it has something to with voters and power but they won't tell you that.
    the fed. govt. takes our tax dollars and spends it on "defense" supposedly yet 16 million illegals are here why? see i can keep repeating myself too.

  2. #202
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: Panel Chairmen Recommend Cutting Federal Spending by $200 Billion

    Quote Originally Posted by Taboon View Post
    As I pointed out, I agree that there are some areas that can be more efficiently managed if those expenditures were localized. However, I do not expect that all the money that the federal government spends in areas such as education would be wiped out by doing so. There are some redundancies, yes, but not everything the federal government provides is redundant. Thus, a shift in burden to the states would result in additional state expenditures in those areas.
    Also, if you do believe that Medicaid is something the states should run completely on their own, then additional expenditures by the states would be required there as well. If Medicaid services are not cut, additional funding would be necessary at the state level to make up for the unfunded expenditures currently paid for by the federal government. So, I would not agree that we do not have a revenue problem. We do have both a spending problem and a revenue problem.

    If the responsibilities are shifted to the states then the size of the Federal Govt. will be reduced and if that raises costs to the states then individuals have a choice whether to pay for those higher costs or move to a lower cost state, one that doesn't have any state income taxes will offset the higher costs to those states.

    You seem to have decided that state costs will go up if the Federal Govt. shifts those responsibilities back to the states. That may or many not happen but my bet is the citizens of the state will have some say in those costs and decide whether or not it is feasible and required. My bet is there is more effeciency than we are getting now. If not, then that is the problem that the people of the states have to handle. We don't have that luxury now at the Federal level.

    Some states are opting out of Medicaid so we shall see if they can handle it better. Federal mandates always come with strings attached and although they provide initial funding once that funding is spent states then are responsible for future expenditures.

    As I pointed out and the numbers prove, federal revenue went up after the tax rate cuts. No one here has explained why?

  3. #203
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: Panel Chairmen Recommend Cutting Federal Spending by $200 Billion

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    If the responsibilities are shifted to the states then the size of the Federal Govt. will be reduced and if that raises costs to the states then individuals have a choice whether to pay for those higher costs or move to a lower cost state, one that doesn't have any state income taxes will offset the higher costs to those states.

    You seem to have decided that state costs will go up if the Federal Govt. shifts those responsibilities back to the states. That may or many not happen but my bet is the citizens of the state will have some say in those costs and decide whether or not it is feasible and required. My bet is there is more effeciency than we are getting now. If not, then that is the problem that the people of the states have to handle. We don't have that luxury now at the Federal level.

    Some states are opting out of Medicaid so we shall see if they can handle it better. Federal mandates always come with strings attached and although they provide initial funding once that funding is spent states then are responsible for future expenditures.

    As I pointed out and the numbers prove, federal revenue went up after the tax rate cuts. No one here has explained why?
    Lower taxes means less inclination to cheat on taxes using high priced lawyers, and those who have a lot of stocks in hand when the tax rates go down, you might just decide to sell the money makers while the taxes are low...
    Wanna bet that a lot of selling will occur before Dec. 31, if it appears that Obama gets his way on canceling the low tax rates for the "rich"...? Should be a noticeable boost in tax revenues on that alone.
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  4. #204
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: Panel Chairmen Recommend Cutting Federal Spending by $200 Billion

    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    Lower taxes means less inclination to cheat on taxes using high priced lawyers, and those who have a lot of stocks in hand when the tax rates go down, you might just decide to sell the money makers while the taxes are low...
    Wanna bet that a lot of selling will occur before Dec. 31, if it appears that Obama gets his way on canceling the low tax rates for the "rich"...? Should be a noticeable boost in tax revenues on that alone.
    I don't believe Obama will get his way regarding raising taxes on the rich. I am still waiting for Liblady to show me the 600 billion that she claims will cost the Govt. Her silence like that of all other class warfare people is deafening.

  5. #205
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: Panel Chairmen Recommend Cutting Federal Spending by $200 Billion

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    I don't believe Obama will get his way regarding raising taxes on the rich. I am still waiting for Liblady to show me the 600 billion that she claims will cost the Govt. Her silence like that of all other class warfare people is deafening.
    Time will tell, as for the 600 billion, nobody knows and everybody guesses. Media have reported some govt official guesses at higher numbers, but all they are doing is repeating someone else's guess. Nearly everybody does that especially in absence of accurate data available to make better guesses.
    The class warfare and envy mantra got old a long time ago, and the constant repeating of it is just lame propaganda, the type usually aimed at the ignorant and uneducated who are gullible enough to accept it, and then repeat it.
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  6. #206
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: Panel Chairmen Recommend Cutting Federal Spending by $200 Billion

    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    Time will tell, as for the 600 billion, nobody knows and everybody guesses. Media have reported some govt official guesses at higher numbers, but all they are doing is repeating someone else's guess. Nearly everybody does that especially in absence of accurate data available to make better guesses.
    The class warfare and envy mantra got old a long time ago, and the constant repeating of it is just lame propaganda, the type usually aimed at the ignorant and uneducated who are gullible enough to accept it, and then repeat it.
    The number posted by the Administration is 700 billion over 10 years or 70 billion a year. Seems that the Obama supporters focus on the 700 billion instead of the impact yearly which is 70 billion. I don't buy either figure because Administration projections have yet to be right on any issue and they seem to have a problem understanding human behavior and even Congressional behavior. There is no evidence that raising taxes during a recession will put 16 million people back to work or that there will be any addition money getting to the treasury or that even if it did it would be put towards reducing the debt. Just imagine how much a 70 billion increase in revenue is going to have on a 1.3 trillion deficit? That is liberal logic.

  7. #207
    User Taboon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Minnesota
    Last Seen
    04-15-11 @ 10:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    135

    Re: Panel Chairmen Recommend Cutting Federal Spending by $200 Billion

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    If the responsibilities are shifted to the states then the size of the Federal Govt. will be reduced and if that raises costs to the states then individuals have a choice whether to pay for those higher costs or move to a lower cost state, one that doesn't have any state income taxes will offset the higher costs to those states.

    You seem to have decided that state costs will go up if the Federal Govt. shifts those responsibilities back to the states. That may or many not happen but my bet is the citizens of the state will have some say in those costs and decide whether or not it is feasible and required. My bet is there is more effeciency than we are getting now. If not, then that is the problem that the people of the states have to handle. We don't have that luxury now at the Federal level.

    Some states are opting out of Medicaid so we shall see if they can handle it better. Federal mandates always come with strings attached and although they provide initial funding once that funding is spent states then are responsible for future expenditures.

    As I pointed out and the numbers prove, federal revenue went up after the tax rate cuts. No one here has explained why?
    What I pointed out is if the current services that the federal government provides is moved to the states, all things staying the same (i.e. the same equal services), costs that the states are responsible for will have to go up given the fact that states need to have a balanced budget and a lot of costs (i.e. Medicaid) incurred by the federal government are not being funded with tax revenues. I don't disagree that the states will have the right to cut those services but if those services remain the same a significant burden will be transferred from the federal government to the states. I don't consider that a tax reduction if I am now paying less in federal taxes but more in state taxes.

  8. #208
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: Panel Chairmen Recommend Cutting Federal Spending by $200 Billion

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    The number posted by the Administration is 700 billion over 10 years or 70 billion a year. Seems that the Obama supporters focus on the 700 billion instead of the impact yearly which is 70 billion. I don't buy either figure because Administration projections have yet to be right on any issue and they seem to have a problem understanding human behavior and even Congressional behavior. There is no evidence that raising taxes during a recession will put 16 million people back to work or that there will be any addition money getting to the treasury or that even if it did it would be put towards reducing the debt. Just imagine how much a 70 billion increase in revenue is going to have on a 1.3 trillion deficit? That is liberal logic.
    the logic isn't liberal, or conservative. Math is math....
    Saving where you can, regardless of the amount, is preferred to not saving at all. A little here, a little there, it adds up. It took me and the wife 30 years to accumulate our "wealth", and we did much better than many of our friends with much higher incomes. I call it being frugal, others call it cheap. But whatever you call it, it adds up. How much did it add up, in exact dollars? Who knows? It was worth the doing....even if it can't be equated to some number...
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  9. #209
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: Panel Chairmen Recommend Cutting Federal Spending by $200 Billion

    Quote Originally Posted by Taboon View Post
    What I pointed out is if the current services that the federal government provides is moved to the states, all things staying the same (i.e. the same equal services), costs that the states are responsible for will have to go up given the fact that states need to have a balanced budget and a lot of costs (i.e. Medicaid) incurred by the federal government are not being funded with tax revenues. I don't disagree that the states will have the right to cut those services but if those services remain the same a significant burden will be transferred from the federal government to the states. I don't consider that a tax reduction if I am now paying less in federal taxes but more in state taxes.
    Of course, SOME states have an advantage. Nevada gets enough in "sin" taxes that there is no state income tax. Wyoming has enough oil and gas that state income tax isn't needed. There are others..
    Alaska has reverse taxation, the state pays its citizens some of the revenue from oil and gas.
    But that doesn't mean people will flock to those states. I mean, to qualify for no state taxes, you have to LIVE there.
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  10. #210
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: Panel Chairmen Recommend Cutting Federal Spending by $200 Billion

    Quote Originally Posted by Taboon View Post
    What I pointed out is if the current services that the federal government provides is moved to the states, all things staying the same (i.e. the same equal services), costs that the states are responsible for will have to go up given the fact that states need to have a balanced budget and a lot of costs (i.e. Medicaid) incurred by the federal government are not being funded with tax revenues. I don't disagree that the states will have the right to cut those services but if those services remain the same a significant burden will be transferred from the federal government to the states. I don't consider that a tax reduction if I am now paying less in federal taxes but more in state taxes.
    Granted, but my point remains many of the "services" provided by the Federal Govt. are IMO state responsibilities and never should have gotten there. It really boils down to the role of the Federal Govt. and that seems to vary by individuals. It really is time for people to go back to the basics and actually read a history book as well as the Constitution as it was written.

    If you are paying more in state taxes and less in Federal Taxes you have a choice to make as some state taxes are much higher than others. Compare state taxes in NY, California, Illinois for example to TX. The choice then is yours, are you willing to pay more to live in those states or will do you what many are doing, move to a lower tax state? It is much easier moving to another state than moving to another country.

Page 21 of 26 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •