The Prof
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 12,828
- Reaction score
- 1,808
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
The Congress is free to consider spending cuts
true
why won't harry?
The Congress is free to consider spending cuts
Poll shows Americans oppose entitlement cuts to deal with debt problem - The Washington Post
Oh, the fickle American public...
I've been saying this for awhile now. Maybe it's time to stop blaming the government for everything and start being introspective about ourselves, the People. Our government is only as competent/effective as the electorate that chooses them.
"Cut spending" is an absolute statement with no regard for efficiency or effectiveness.
Breaking News...
America wants "spending cuts" but doesn't want anything specific cut, especially anything that directly benefits them, and are all for someone ELSE being taxed more money.
In America, elected officials may ignore the wishes and interests of the People with impunity.
The following are some corporate welfare programs that are long overdue
for repeal. Where provided, spending totals are for fiscal year 2008.
● Agriculture Department: Market Access Program. This program hands out more than $200 million annually to exporters of agricultural products to pay for their overseas advertising. Some of the recipients include the Brewers Association, the Pet Food Institute, Sunkist Growers, Welch’s Food, and the Wine Institute.
● Commerce Department: Advanced Technology Program. This $198 million program gives research grants to high-tech companies.
● Foreign Military Financing. U.S. taxpayers fund weapons purchases by foreign governments through this $4.7 billion program.
● Amtrak. The federal passenger rail company receives about $1.4 billion in subsidies annually. But Amtrak would be better off privatized so it could cut inefficient routes, maximize profits, and
innovate.
● Export-Import Bank. This agency uses taxpayer dollars to subsidize the financing of foreign purchases of U.S. goods. It makes billions of dollars of preferential loans to foreigners, guarantees the loans of private institutions, and provides export credit insurance. In 2007, a Dallas television station (WFAA) discovered that the agency provided $243 million in loans to bogus Mexican companies, including drug cartels.
● Maritime Administration. This $591 million agency provides subsidies to the commercial shipping and shipbuilding industries. For example, the agency provides loan guarantees for purchases of ships
from U.S. shipyards. But the best way to ensure a vigorous U.S.-owned ship industry is to reduce domestic taxes and regulations, which have encouraged the industry to move offshore.
● Energy Department: Energy Supply Research. This $894 million program aims to develop new and improved energy technologies. But the energy industry itself should fund such work, since it will
earn profits when breakthroughs are made.
● Small Business Administration. This $530 million agency provides subsidized loans and loan guarantees to small businesses. It has a poor record of selecting businesses to support, as its loans have high rates of delinquency.
any reasonable solution must include tax increases.
CriticalThought said:Draconian spending cuts to shrink the federal government would hurt our economy!
Why would you tax the citizens just to give the money to a producer to lower the price of a product in the grocery store? Why not just let the product cost what it costs and let the citizen keep their money and buy the product if they want it? It doesn't matter if it's wheat producers or corn producers.
Where does ethanol fit into the mix? We subsidize corn producers. That raises the price of corn to produce a product (taking a lot of energy to do so) that isn't as efficient as the product it's replacing. Who, exactly, penciled that one out? Look at who is making the money. Is it the corn producers or the politicians or both?
The last election cycle saw two Tea Party darlings, Bachmann-MN and our very own Noem who had farm subsidies attached to their financial disclosures. They did nothing wrong or illegal. They just "farmed the programs."
The rest of us don't get the break. Farmers get breaks on gasoline taxes for machinery. What about your car? You need it to get to work. It's necessary for your job just as much as a farmer's tractor plowing the field is.
It's no longer whose ox will be gored but who you are going to pry off of the government dole.
I really hate the use of the term draconian when talking about government spending less money
The original term was based on heavy punishments levied for minor offenses.
The government spending can‘t be perceived as in individual punishment in the same manner that a tax levied against an individual is
So draconian taxation is true to the origin of the term, but draconian spending fails.
McINTYRE: Farming corporate welfare
Farm subsidies would be another good place to start chopping, vigorously, with a budget axe.
As I said, no simple solution exists but any reasonable solution must include tax increases.
The rich have seen their share of the national income increase
Agree here. The one part of your comment I don't agree with is the notion that a farmer can't get gas breaks on the gasoline for his machinery. I do think that should, under our current tax code at least, be an expense that could be written off.
Agree here. The one part of your comment I don't agree with is the notion that a farmer can't get gas breaks on the gasoline for his machinery. I do think that should, under our current tax code at least, be an expense that could be written off. The Car analogy by the individual is a very poor one. The farmer doesn't use the tractor to transport himself to work...he uses it to DO his work. Its similar to how you CAN claim your car or gas if driving is part of the actual job. Though I don't think that farmers should get some extra special benefit beyond that, such as making it tax exempt at the time of purchase or something of the sort. Though to be honest I may be misunderstanding what your writer was saying there.
I really hate the use of the term draconian when talking about government spending less money
The original term was based on heavy punishments levied for minor offenses.
The government spending can‘t be perceived as in individual punishment in the same manner that a tax levied against an individual is
So draconian taxation is true to the origin of the term, but draconian spending fails.
I assure you our elected officals are paying attention to such polls.
All the dumb-ass farmer has to do is incorporate and thus separate his business expenses from his personal expenses.
Thanks Gill,
I still see no real point to it in our current economic environment and think it should be cut. What's so special about farmers compared to say, my friend who owns a four wheeler that isn't street legal so only drives on the road as well. Or how about everyone owning a boat or sea doo which aren't going on the road? What about my lawn mower, that's not for road use.
both democrats and republicans spend
neither sigificantly cut spending
The reason farm fuel is not taxed (subsidized) is that the fuel taxes are supposed to pay for road work. Since tractors and other farm equipment don't normally travel on public roads, they shouldn't have to pay the road tax. The farmers I know that have untaxed fuel are very careful that none of it is used for vehicles that travel public roads, although I'm sure there are some that ignore the law.
Thanks Gill,
I still see no real point to it in our current economic environment and think it should be cut. What's so special about farmers compared to say, my friend who owns a four wheeler that isn't street legal so only drives on the road as well. Or how about everyone owning a boat or sea doo which aren't going on the road? What about my lawn mower, that's not for road use.
Off-highway business use includes fuels used in any of the following ways.
In stationary machines such as generators, compressors, power saws, and similar equipment.
For cleaning purposes.
In forklift trucks, bulldozers, and earthmovers.
Generally, this use does not include nonbusiness use of fuel, such as use by minibikes, snowmobiles, power lawn mowers, chain saws, and other yard equipment.
Example.
Caroline owns a landscaping business. She uses power lawn mowers and chain saws in her business. The gasoline used in the power lawn mowers and chain saws qualifies as fuel used in an off-highway business use. The gasoline used in her personal lawn mower at home does not qualify.
Publication 510 (04/2009), Excise Taxes