How much do you care about balancing the US federal budget?

TurtleDude said:

not jacking up taxes is going to cause a "default"

corporations are sitting on case because they are worried about the direction Obama might take. The top 2% already pay too much of the tax and adding to that without jacking up taxes on the majority of the voters will only signal to the majority of voters that deficit reduction (LOL-the dems have no interest in cutting spending that gains them votes and plenty of republicans are as bad as well) is not their burden and they won't push for it since they don't have to pay for it-at least not now

Click to expand...

Highter taxes = more power for the government.
More spending = more power for the government.
Lower taxes = less power for the government
Less spending = less power for the government.
Everything is thus explained.

obvious Child said:

Not reducing the debt will. And at our level of debt, we will have to follow the Europeans in slashing spending and raising taxes.



Not really. Corporations are sitting on money because there's no demand to expand. Even with pending legislation and taxes, corporations will expand their general operations if demand is there. Macy's will expand stores if there is additional demand regardless of such pending legislation. Intel will building another Module if processor demand is taking off independent of pending legislation. The problem is lack of consumer demand.

The rest of your post is your standard classism. Not worth responding to.

Click to expand...

classism is what motivated 98% of the posts demanding higher taxes on the rich. I will give you credit-you at least can make an honest argument in favor of tax hikes that MAY NOT be motivated by envy. That puts you in a very rare class.

TurtleDude said:

classism is what motivated 98% of the posts demanding higher taxes on the rich.

Click to expand...

:shock:
If it werent for classism, the Democrats would not exist.

Cassandra said:

That is right. It can be easily fixed by raising the ceiling a small amount on income taxed for Soc.Sec. and raising the retirement age a year or two. I can promise you that Congress and thousands of economists already know this.

Click to expand...

So your answer is basically to raise the tax and make the retirees wait until......when.......age 80 or so? No adjustments need to be made to let's say, disability payments or SS disability qualifications, or any other aspects of the program? So we who ARE working just pay more, those who DID work just wait longer. Got it :thumbs:
And according to your estimates, how long before this brings SS back into the "black?"

FluffyNinja said:

So your answer is basically to raise the tax and make the retirees wait until......when.......age 80 or so? No adjustments need to be made to let's say, disability payments or SS disability qualifications, or any other aspects of the program? So we who ARE working just pay more, those who DID work just wait longer. Got it :thumbs:
And according to your estimates, how long before this brings SS back into the "black?"

Click to expand...

Boy this is really exasperating. I brought up S.Sec. to explain why it is not like medicare- it can easily be made self-funding. It has provided a surplus until recently. There are lots of ideas about how to fix it- expand the payroll tax, increase the retirement age a year, reduce benefits to high earners -or some combination- take your pick. Congress needs to get on with it.

Now, moving on to Medicare- the real liability along with military spending. I would just like some Repub voter/poster to man up and explain to me how they think Repubs in Washington have any credibility in the deficit reduction front. They passed the Medicare Prescription Drug benefit w/o a mechanism to pay for it. They cry "death panels" at any suggestion that Medicare needs sensible rationing. They refuse to raise taxes. They always vote to throw money in the direction of military spending. I am just trying to figure out what is motivating people to vote Repub- a third party, I could understand but Repub? The party of big spenders??!

Kandahar said:

And before anyone asks where the poll option is for "I'm a Republican/conservative who wants a low deficit and low taxes and low spending" (or the converse for Democrats)...the entire point of the poll is to NOT allow you to do that. You actually have to make a tough choice instead of just reciting your talking points.

Click to expand...

Here's the problem with this Kandahar. Something like this takes a snap shot and acts us to act outside of reality. Which is fine, but then you have some who then try to use this as a means to club you in reality.

For example, I'll use myself.

In a HYPOTHETICAL world where, for whatever reason, its physically absolutely impossible for spending to be cut and taxes to be lowered. In this hypotethetical world then the only thing that can be done is either have a high deficit and low taxes or vise versa. In that hypothetical world alone I would want higher taxes on EVERYONE until such a point that it levels out, and then I'd want it reduced.

However, we don't live in that hypothetical world. The more we, as citizens, continue to allow politicians to get away without accountability and take the most reasonable, logical, and realistic method of dealing with this...reducing spending...off the table the more the problem is our faught.

The CORRECT answer to this is...neither. If they raise taxes, but don't cut spending, vote their asses out. If they lower taxes, but don't cut spending, vote their asses out. STOP just assuming they won't do it and then basing everything off that because it does nothing but encourage that very attitude.

In theory, I'm definitely in favor of raising taxes in the short term to get rid of a deficite...IF its combined with spending cuts. The reason I say that is because a politician is not willing to ALSO cut spending then it shows they're not serious about fixing the deficite. If they're not serious about fixing it then the notion that higher taxes is going to go to reducing it is pissing in the wind...its going to come right back around in your face. All higher taxes would mean would be the ability for higher spending, higher spending would then lead to higher deficite. And the trend continues.

So in theory, if we had responsible politicians but lived in a world where its physically impossible to cut spending...sure, tax us a bit more till we get this under control. But we don't live in this magical fantasy world and if they don't have the conviction to cut spending there's no reason to believe that the increased taxes will lead to anything but increased spending.

However, your question raises another interesting hypothetical to post.

Kandahar said:

And before anyone asks where the poll option is for "I'm a Republican/conservative who wants a low deficit and low taxes and low spending" (or the converse for Democrats)...the entire point of the poll is to NOT allow you to do that. You actually have to make a tough choice instead of just reciting your talking points.

Click to expand...

I see no option I can vote for. Every option includes deficit spending. Deficit spending should be the exception, not the rule. Congress simply cannot continue spending money year after year that it doesn't have. For extraordinary circumstances? Of course it makes sense; but in ordinary times? No way. Raise taxes. Or stop spending.

Reducing the budget deficit should take precedent over any conceived tax cut in the near future. Deficit spending requires borrowing, and borrowing money essentially breaks down to forfeiting a portion of future earnings for the purpose of spending now. We can not continue to borrow money and spend in excess at the detriment to future generations (for the record, this has been going on since the 80s and across party lines).

I have a very easy plan to reduce the deficit we are in.

-Bring jobs back to America so wages balance out, then roll back all Bush tax cuts.

-cut the intelligence community in half (if not more) by getting rid of the bureaucracy in it.

-cut down the military and stock piles, also leave all hostile countries and simply stay in our allies (Kuwait, Germany, Japan)

-Do a more stringent look at the "entitlement" programs as it is taken advantage of a lot.

-Make pot legal (a domino effect of savings to the tax payer there)

-Let immigrants be here but tax them more the first few years they are (another domino effect of savings to the tax payer)

-tax corporations for taking our jobs out of here and into ****ing Mexico and China (like Ford and Walmart does)

-give tax breaks to foreign corporations and american ones for doing business in here (Toyota, GM)

-Tell China to go **** themselves

-Send North Korea and Iran a video of Obama (better yet Biden) sitting on a front porch stroking a gun and smoking a cigarette rocking back and forth in his rocking chair, all you can really see is his outline in the shadow and the glow of his cigarette. billions saved in war

-Tell China one more time to go **** themselves

I think that would help get rid of at least half the deficit if we did it all like that.

Cassandra said:

Boy this is really exasperating. I brought up S.Sec. to explain why it is not like medicare- it can easily be made self-funding. It has provided a surplus until recently. There are lots of ideas about how to fix it- expand the payroll tax, increase the retirement age a year, reduce benefits to high earners -or some combination- take your pick. Congress needs to get on with it.

Click to expand...

SS is also a great investment. After adding up 22 years of monthly checks, I'm getting back 10 times more than I put in, and still growing every month...

According to justfacts.com...

Since 1982, Social Security has had surpluses ranging from $89 million to $190 billion per year. By law, these surpluses must be loaned to the federal government, which is obligated to pay the money back with interest. This is referred to as the "Social Security Trust Fund" and at the close of 2007 it had a balance of $2.2 trillion.

Of course the Fed Gov $2.2 trillion obligation to SS will probably never be met. Thanks to the huge war expenditures, and massive military presence all over the rest of the world, budget deficits are here to stay.

ricksfolly

ricksfolly said:

SS is also a great investment. After adding up 22 years of monthly checks, I'm getting back 10 times more than I put in, and still growing every month...

Click to expand...

That's because you're getting all the money I put in and will never see...
That's not an investment, that's welfare.

Of course the Fed Gov $2.2 trillion obligation to SS will probably never be met. Thanks to the huge war expenditures, and massive military presence all over the rest of the world, budget deficits are here to stay.

Click to expand...

This is unsupportable, nonsensical partisan dreck.

ricksfolly said:

SS is also a great investment. After adding up 22 years of monthly checks, I'm getting back 10 times more than I put in, and still growing every month...

According to justfacts.com...

Since 1982, Social Security has had surpluses ranging from $89 million to $190 billion per year. By law, these surpluses must be loaned to the federal government, which is obligated to pay the money back with interest. This is referred to as the "Social Security Trust Fund" and at the close of 2007 it had a balance of $2.2 trillion.

Of course the Fed Gov $2.2 trillion obligation to SS will probably never be met. Thanks to the huge war expenditures, and massive military presence all over the rest of the world, budget deficits are here to stay.

ricksfolly

Click to expand...

Among the many ironies found in the election are those pictures of aging Tea Party members angrily demanding tax cuts,spending cuts and a balanced budget. Apparently, they did not bother to look at the budget pie or they would know that a balanced budget will only be achieved by baby boomers, like themselves, bracing for significant amounts of self-flagellation.

It will be interesting to see how congressional repubs handle the logical inconsistencies of their positions. I can imagine one possible positive outcome- Dems and Repubs might work together to eliminate corporate welfare and reduce or eliminate earmarks but that won't go far to reduce the deficit.

JohnWOlin said:

I have a very easy plan to reduce the deficit we are in.

-Bring jobs back to America so wages balance out, then roll back all Bush tax cuts.

Click to expand...

Through what mechanism do you intend to return jobs to America (I assume you're referring to outsourcing)? The government has no constitutional authority to force businesses to return jobs that have been outsourced. The best that you can hope for, and I'm on board with this, is to establish a tax based incentive for companies who keep a certain percentage of their jobs in the United States.

As far as the Bush tax cuts go, I would agree with letting the portion that the Democrats are currently pushing to let expire do so, but for the purpose of reducing the deficit and that purpose alone.

librep said:

Through what mechanism do you intend to return jobs to America (I assume you're referring to outsourcing)? The government has no constitutional authority to force businesses to return jobs that have been outsourced. The best that you can hope for, and I'm on board with this, is to establish a tax based incentive for companies who keep a certain percentage of their jobs in the United States.

As far as the Bush tax cuts go, I would agree with letting the portion that the Democrats are currently pushing to let expire do so, but for the purpose of reducing the deficit and that purpose alone.

Click to expand...

Simple...offer corporate tax incentives to bring the jobs back (and continue to offer incentives to foreign manufacturers to open more plants in the US), encourage labor and corporation to renegotiate intelligent salaries (leveraging the foreign manufacturers) and tariff the hell out of every product manufactured by a US corporation outside of the US brought back into the US.

Cassandra said:

Among the many ironies found in the election are those pictures of aging Tea Party members angrily demanding tax cuts,spending cuts and a balanced budget. Apparently, they did not bother to look at the budget pie or they would know that a balanced budget will only be achieved by baby boomers, like themselves, bracing for significant amounts of self-flagellation.

Click to expand...

Responsible adults are able to look past their own personal situation and support what's best for he common good - so there should be no issue

It will be interesting to see how congressional repubs handle the logical inconsistencies of their positions.

Click to expand...

Which are...?

librep said:

Through what mechanism do you intend to return jobs to America

Click to expand...

Jobs leave here because the American labor market isnt competitve with that overseas.
There's three ways to change that:
-Unionize the workers in China, Indonesia, etc
-Break the unions here
-Both

Goobieman said:

Responsible adults are able to look past their own personal situation and support what's best for he common good - so there should be no issue

Click to expand...

Rest assured that most of them are unaware that the deficit cannot be reduced w/o significant cuts to medicare.

Which are...?

Click to expand...

Like I said, before- Repubs have said they will focus on tax cuts, job creation and reducing the deficit. These goals are incompatible, especially as they are on record opposing "H.C. rationing" and have already expanded medicare w/o a funding mechanism. They may attempt to shift more financial burdens to the states but that certainly will be a job killer. Reducing corporate welfare would be a noble goal but I am not holding my breath.

Cassandra said:

Rest assured that most of them are unaware that the deficit cannot be reduced w/o significant cuts to medicare.


Like I said, before- Repubs have said they will focus on tax cuts, job creation and reducing the deficit. These goals are incompatible, especially as they are on record opposing "H.C. rationing" and have already expanded medicare w/o a funding mechanism. They may attempt to shift more financial burdens to the states but that certainly will be a job killer. Reducing corporate welfare would be a noble goal but I am not holding my breath.

Click to expand...

describe what you think corporate welfare is

Goobieman said:

Jobs leave here because the American labor market isn’t competitive with that overseas.
There's three ways to change that:
-Unionize the workers in China, Indonesia, etc
-Break the unions here
-Both

Click to expand...

Cutting taxes in some areas might help as well - I believe our taxes are higher than some areas of the world - as I understand things, lower taxes or tax breaks are a good incentive for businesses to expand, as it means they will be more likely to make a good profit.

TurtleDude said:

describe what you think corporate welfare is

Click to expand...

Tax breaks too numerous to list, federal farm subsidies, subsidies for off-shoring, allowing corporations to benefit from the exploitation of the commons at little or no expense, raising taxes for the purpose of building infrastructure that will enrich private interests, anemic enforcement of anti-trust laws (in some instances).

Cassandra said:

Tax breaks too numerous to list, federal farm subsidies, subsidies for off-shoring, allowing corporations to benefit from the exploitation of the commons at little or no expense, raising taxes for the purpose of building infrastructure that will enrich private interests, anemic enforcement of anti-trust laws (in some instances).

Click to expand...

OK you define that so widely it hasn't any use

TurtleDude said:

OK you define that so widely it hasn't any use

Click to expand...

You asked - take an egregious example- farm subsidies- are the Repubs in Congress likely to eliminate them on behalf of a balanced budget?

Cassandra said:

Dems and Repubs might work together to eliminate corporate welfare and reduce or eliminate earmarks but that won't go far to reduce the deficit.

Click to expand...

Corporation lobbyists will never let it happen, no matter how much it costs them in under the table bribes, and if you eliminate earmarks you eliminate jobs.

ricksfolly

Cassandra said:

You asked - take an egregious example- farm subsidies- are the Repubs in Congress likely to eliminate them on behalf of a balanced budget?

Click to expand...

lets hope they eliminate the ones that are not useful.

TurtleDude said:

lets hope they eliminate the ones that are not useful.

Click to expand...

Thing is...

ALL of em' are useful - to somebody...

It's deciding who you want to piss off that's the hard part.