• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP 2012 budget to make $4 trillion-plus in cuts

Spaceman_Spiff said:
Yes, I've seen that video and similar ones before. I have no problem admitting that Frank's analysis, in hindsight, was off the mark. Yet, that video has absolutely nothing to do with my question to Hugh.

Hugh made the claim that any attempt to reform Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae stalled because Barney Frank, apparently wielding so much power in the House of Representatives, that he alone is to blame for the Republican Party's inability to pass much needed reform. Keep in mind that the House of Representatives passed their version with a comfortable majority, but then similar legislation was unable to even make it out of Committee in the Senate. Those little details are insignificant.

With that in mind, please answer my post this time. What did Barney Frank specifically do that caused reform to fail?
Click to expand...

He managed to convince people there was no problem.
Side note: Now he's saying he was always against getting people into their own homes that way, but that he was pushing getting them into rentals. Geez...why do people keep voting for that doofus.
 
Re: US Republican budget plan would cut $5.8 trln in 10 yrs

cpwill said:
mostly revenues. we don't have a balanced budget for a couple of years yet (2015, i think?)



while removing the tax loopholes that allow some of them to get away with paying nothing. GE got a refund last year, despite large profits, thanks to corporate welfare. The Ryan Budget changes that. So they pay lower rates, but now they have to pay



on the contrary, lowering and flattening tax rates while reducing tax code complexity will lead to much stronger growth; which will cause the deficit to shrink as a percent of GDP, which in turn means that it shrinks as a portion of both government budgets and revenues.



or is better educated on this matter than yourself.



and that should come too



check. one of the ways theis bill keeps revenues neutral while lowering the corporate tax rate is cutting corporate subsidies.



the Ryan plan has no cuts to Social Security, not a single dollar spent last year will not be spent next year. what it does is slow the growth in these two programs to a sustainable level; so that they will continue to be available to Americans, as opposed to driving us into bankruptcy.

:roll: only a Republican could increase spending on social programs and be accused of cutting from the poor middle class.
Click to expand...

THey should cut the loopholes and leave the tax rate the same, at least till were out of debt. Theres no mention of cutting subsidies or saving billions by getting troops out of many countries they shouldnt be...no mention of cutting billions in foriegn aid, no mention of punishing employers that hire illegals.
There is cuts to social security one of which is 750 billion cut to senior meals...theres others also. I doubt ryans plan as it stands will pass gop muster in the long
run
 
danarhea said:
Yea, the GOP said it was going to balance the budget in Wisconsin too. So what about the budgetary items? They are still languishing in a Republican controlled Congress. What got passed? The part that attempts to bust the unions got shoved down the throats of the citizens of Wisconsin. But the budgetary items remain unpassed. Let me say that again - Unions busted down, budgetary items remain unpassed. However, Wisconsinites don't tolerate anything being shoved down their throats, unless it's cheese or beer. This ain't cheese or beer, but a law the vast majority of them do NOT support. Cheesehead Armageddon has now begun. Sucks to be a Republican in Wisconsin.

So, in response to the OP, I will believe it when I see it. The GOP has lost all credibility with me. I just don't trust them.
Click to expand...

It was languishing because the Democrat Senators decided to run out and play hookey and the required quorum was not present to pass the budget bill. Since they have finally returned from their vacation, the budget bill was passed.
 
Re: US Republican budget plan would cut $5.8 trln in 10 yrs

lpast said:
THey should cut the loopholes and leave the tax rate the same, at least till were out of debt. Theres no mention of cutting subsidies or saving billions by getting troops out of many countries they shouldnt be...no mention of cutting billions in foriegn aid, no mention of punishing employers that hire illegals.
There is cuts to social security one of which is 750 billion cut to senior meals...theres others also. I doubt ryans plan as it stands will pass gop muster in the long
run
Click to expand...

Dropping the corporate tax rate to 25% will make us competitive with the the rest of the world. .
As far as the other things that aren't in the proposal, they will come in the future. This is a good start.
The Dems have one coming out in a week, we'll see what's in their's.
There are no cuts to SS in Ryan's bill. None.
 
Chappy said:
Oh, wow, all those poor people convinced all the rich people to give them their money and brought about the worldwide fiscal meltdown! I have somehow wandered into the conspiracy forum, haven't I? My mistake, I'll go find a reality-based forum.
Click to expand...

Don't be stupid...no poor people convinced the rich to give to them. Politicians, pandering to the crippled and dependent voters, did that. And their effort was ingenious...because they didn't create systems to help them get up and out of poverty...they created systems designed to KEEP them in poverty...and keep them voting democrat.

Now...aside from government wealth redistribution programs (ie...make all parties broke), there are many wealthy folk who give of their time and money freely and on their own without needing the government to do it for them. You are a big Will Rogers fan...surely that resonates with you...
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
Interesting.

Since when does a cut in revenue have to be paid for? Wouldn't "paying" for a cut in revenue itself be a revenuen and thus no net cut would exist?

It's silly to claim a cut in expenses is paying for a cut in revenues, especially considering that today's budget problems are universally spending problems, not tax problems.
Click to expand...

Almost certainly, Deuce was referring to the fundamental income statement equation: Revenue - Expenses = Surplus/Deficit

If one wants to cut Revenue by $X and have a $0 change in the Surplus/Deficit, one must either find additional revenue increases of $X, reduce expenses by $X or some combination of the two that amount to $X.

In practice, the necessary offset would amount to something modestly less than the full $X, because some portion of the tax cut would lead to an increase in consumption, generating some extra tax revenue. However, the amount of tax revenue resulting from the increase in consumption would not come close to covering the full amount of foregone tax revenue, even when multipliers are considered.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Almost certainly, Deuce was referring to the fundamental income statement equation: Revenue - Expenses = Surplus/Deficit

If one wants to cut Revenue by $X and have a $0 change in the Surplus/Deficit, one must either find additional revenue increases of $X, reduce expenses by $X or some combination of the two that amount to $X.

In practice, the necessary offset would amount to something modestly less than the full $X, because some portion of the tax cut would lead to an increase in consumption, generating some extra tax revenue. However, the amount of tax revenue resulting from the increase in consumption would not come close to covering the full amount of foregone tax revenue, even when multipliers are considered.
Click to expand...

A good question to ask, when the tax rates were cut to the rich did they pay more or less in income taxes and did govt. revenue go up or down? The answer will destroy the liberal argument that tax rate cuts actually cut income tax revenue. Ryan's budget is going to be attacked by those that don't understand the concept of growing revenue. It is pure mathematics to a liberal where if you cut taxes nothing else changes thus revenue drops. Liberals don't understand incentive and that affect on govt. revenue. Cutting the tax rates and elmininating loopholes will put U.S. Corporations in line with the world businesses and revenue will actually grow.
 
Conservative said:
A good question to ask, when the tax rates were cut to the rich did they pay more or less in income taxes and did govt. revenue go up or down? The answer will destroy the liberal argument that tax rate cuts actually cut income tax revenue. Ryan's budget is going to be attacked by those that don't understand the concept of growing revenue. It is pure mathematics to a liberal where if you cut taxes nothing else changes thus revenue drops. Liberals don't understand incentive and that affect on govt. revenue. Cutting the tax rates and elmininating loopholes will put U.S. Corporations in line with the world businesses and revenue will actually grow.
Click to expand...

A number of factors were at play. Elasticities differ e.g., there's more macroeconomic impact from reducing high marginal rates than low marginal rates. Moreover, aside from touching on immediate macroeconomic impact e.g., via the consumption channel, there is also an investment impact. If capital can be allocated more efficiently e.g., to higher return investments following a tax rate change, then those investments could yield long-term benefits that are also macroneconomically significant when those benefits are realized.

Also, in terms of efficiency, the idea of eliminating loopholes in exchange for lower tax rates makes sense (reduced compliance costs, lower costs associated with dealing with errors, time savings, reduced macroeconomic distortions, etc.). In addition, a case for "fairness" can be made when one pursues the idea of eliminating preferential items in the tax code in exchange for lower tax rates that apply to all filers.
 
donsutherland1 said:
A number of factors were at play. Elasticities differ e.g., there's more macroeconomic impact from reducing high marginal rates than low marginal rates. Moreover, aside from touching on immediate macroeconomic impact e.g., via the consumption channel, there is also an investment impact. If capital can be allocated more efficiently e.g., to higher return investments following a tax rate change, then those investments could yield long-term benefits that are also macroneconomically significant when those benefits are realized.

Also, in terms of efficiency, the idea of eliminating loopholes in exchange for lower tax rates makes sense (reduced compliance costs, lower costs associated with dealing with errors, time savings, reduced macroeconomic distortions, etc.). In addition, a case for "fairness" can be made when one pursues the idea of eliminating preferential items in the tax code in exchange for lower tax rates that apply to all filers.
Click to expand...

Exactly, lower rates does not mean less revenue collected and if liberals truly cared about govt. revenue they would care more about how much, not the rates
 
Re: US Republican budget plan would cut $5.8 trln in 10 yrs

lpast said:
THey should cut the loopholes and leave the tax rate the same, at least till were out of debt.
Click to expand...

doing that would cause us to take longer to get out of debt, while not really increasing revenues. I know it's counterintuitive; but top tax rates really have little if any correlation with revenues - though they do with growth.

wsj-tax-revenue-chart-ed-ah556b_ranso_20080519194014.gif


Theres no mention of cutting subsidies
Click to expand...

actually it gets hundreds of billions in savings by cutting subsidies and special corporate loopholes.

or saving billions by getting troops out of many countries they shouldnt be
Click to expand...

war is one of the things you spend on. either way, that's a foriegn policy debate.

no mention of cutting billions in foriegn aid
Click to expand...

actually the current Republican proposal cuts foriegn aid. you may have noticed the Democrats demagouging them for wanting to kill foriegn children?

no mention of punishing employers that hire illegals.
Click to expand...

no, there isn't. that's an immigration issue, not part of a budget.

There is cuts to social security one of which is 750 billion cut to senior meals
Click to expand...

actually this budget proposal doesn't effect social security. you may be thinking of Medicare, which will see changes starting in 2022.

...theres others also. I doubt ryans plan as it stands will pass gop muster in the long run
Click to expand...

then shame on them, as well, for taking the easy path to bankruptcy.
 
Re: US Republican budget plan would cut $5.8 trln in 10 yrs

cpwill said:
I know it's counterintuitive; but top tax rates really have little if any correlation with revenues
Click to expand...

That's because Tax Revenue = Tax Rate * Tax Base (in the simplest terms). If one can sufficiently expand the tax base, a reduction in the tax rate does not automatically lead to reduced tax revenue. Hence, for a very simple illustration, let's assume the tax base is $1,000,000 and the tax rate is 30%. That would yield tax revenue of $300,000. Let's say that Tax Code changes were made that eliminated all preferential deductions, yielding a new tax base of $1,500,000. At the same time, the tax rate was cut to 20%. Then, tax revenue would remain unchanged at $300,000. At the individual taxpayer level, some taxpayers would pay more (those who could no longer take advantage of the preferential items) and others would pay less (those who never could take advantage of the preferential items).
 
Let's go about balancing the budget in a truly bipartisan way.

We'll put the Democrats in charge of raising taxes, and the Republicans in charge of cutting spending. If we agree that neither party will try to trash the other party's plan, we just might wind up with a balanced budget.

Brilliant, just brilliant, if I may say so myself.
 
danarhea said:
Yea, the GOP said it was going to balance the budget in Wisconsin too. So what about the budgetary items? They are still languishing in a Republican controlled Congress. What got passed? The part that attempts to bust the unions got shoved down the throats of the citizens of Wisconsin. But the budgetary items remain unpassed. Let me say that again - Unions busted down, budgetary items remain unpassed. However, Wisconsinites don't tolerate anything being shoved down their throats, unless it's cheese or beer. This ain't cheese or beer, but a law the vast majority of them do NOT support. Cheesehead Armageddon has now begun. Sucks to be a Republican in Wisconsin.

So, in response to the OP, I will believe it when I see it. The GOP has lost all credibility with me. I just don't trust them.
Click to expand...

It's okay, best to not bck the guys at least trying to cut the budget. Go Unions! Go Dems! That's the ticket!! :roll:
 
Dittohead not! said:
he actual cut is likely to be a lot less.

We need some real leadership who is willing to tell the American Voters the truth: This government is in deep doo doo, some real sacrifices are in order, and the only way out is real spending cuts along with tax increases.
Click to expand...

This BIG SWOLLEN INGROWN PUS BAG of a government is in deep doodoo. That swamp needs to be drained and the monsters sent back home. Seriously. Nothing good can be done with the players we have now. They are too corrupted.

The biggest problem we are facing is corruption in an ingrown Congress. THEY HAVE DONE THIS TO US AND WE NEED TO REMEMBER WHO THE ENEMY IS.
 
Of course....Republicans want the cuts to come from Seniors, low income and children rather than focusing on the billions that they hand out every year to their billionaire corporate bed buddies. What else is new?
 
disneydude said:
Of course....Republicans want the cuts to come from Seniors, low income and children rather than focusing on the billions that they hand out every year to their billionaire corporate bed buddies. What else is new?
Click to expand...

Where does the money come from to pay for the 4 trillion dollars that have been added to the debt since Obama took office? You think those evil rich corporations can pay for the liberal spending appetite?
 
Conservative said:
Where does the money come from to pay for the 4 trillion dollars that have been added to the debt since Obama took office? You think those evil rich corporations can pay for the liberal spending appetite?
Click to expand...

I dunno...why don't you ask GE and all the other corporations who take billions in government handouts and don't pay a cent in taxes.
 
disneydude said:
I dunno...why don't you ask GE and all the other corporations who take billions in government handouts and don't pay a cent in taxes.
Click to expand...

LOL, you mean old Jeffrey Immelt got a handout from Obama? How can that be since Obama cares about the little guy? Guess if you are an Obama supporter you get all kinds of benefits, waivers on healthcare and of course corporate taxes.
 
disneydude said:
I dunno...why don't you ask GE and all the other corporations who take billions in government handouts and don't pay a cent in taxes.
Click to expand...

So you are in support of a flat tax where corporations can't play the system? That's great news!!!
 
Hugh_Akston said:
So you are in support of a flat tax where corporations can't play the system? That's great news!!!
Click to expand...

No. The flat tax is nothing more than a veiled attempt to cut taxes even further for the wealthiest Americans. I prefer a return to the pre-Reagan days, before Reagan raised taxes on the working class and cut taxes of the wealthiest Americans in half.

Remember those days, when the people of this country could actually afford to buy a home, the "American dream" was alive and well and a two parent working home was a luxury not a necessity?

Remember those days?.....Reagan and the so called "Family values" party but an end to that, took parents out of the homes, created generations of latch key kids and have bankrupted this once great country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom