• 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!

Panel Chairmen Recommend Cutting Federal Spending by $200 Billion

So, I've disproved your numbers with the site (BEA) that you provided and I look foolish? Did you even look at the BEA link I provided? Seriously?

You have proven nothing, the facts are that tax revenue went up AFTER the Reagan and Bush tax cuts which you cannot explain. Fact remains SS and Medicare are ON BUDGET and shouldn't be. Fact is income tax revenue is more than enough to fund the basic functions of the govt that are required by the Constitution. Never in my life have I had to work so hard to convince people like you that there is nothing wrong with keeping more of your own money and that tax revenue goes up after tax rate cuts.
 
You have proven nothing, the facts are that tax revenue went up AFTER the Reagan and Bush tax cuts which you cannot explain. Fact remains SS and Medicare are ON BUDGET and shouldn't be. Fact is income tax revenue is more than enough to fund the basic functions of the govt that are required by the Constitution. Never in my life have I had to work so hard to convince people like you that there is nothing wrong with keeping more of your own money and that tax revenue goes up after tax rate cuts.

Tax revenue always goes up after a recession; especially if the Federal government begins engaging in massive deficit spending. Spending creates jobs, as it did during the Reagan and Bush 42 years.
 
You have proven nothing, the facts are that tax revenue went up AFTER the Reagan and Bush tax cuts which you cannot explain.
I've done so many times, its called POPULATION GROWTH.
 
You have proven nothing, the facts are that tax revenue went up AFTER the Reagan and Bush tax cuts which you cannot explain. Fact remains SS and Medicare are ON BUDGET and shouldn't be. Fact is income tax revenue is more than enough to fund the basic functions of the govt that are required by the Constitution. Never in my life have I had to work so hard to convince people like you that there is nothing wrong with keeping more of your own money and that tax revenue goes up after tax rate cuts.
Who exactly are people like me? Are you talking about liberals in general here? One thing you just seem to not get is that my fiscal views are nowhere near liberal. I am for a balanced budget and am against only raising taxes to get us there. Actually, I think most of the deficit reduction should come from spending cuts not raising taxes, that's why I like the current proposal that has submitted to curb the deficit.
What exactly have I not proven? That you're summary of tax receipts by year is wrong? I think I have justifiably proven that with the same source you told me yourself to use. If that's not proving something in your mind, I can't get past your partisan blinders. Oh well.
And as far as your accusation is concerned that I have not proven that reducing taxes does not raise overall tax revenues, I wasn't trying to. I was pointing out that nobody has proven as such either way. It's nothing more than a hypothesis without fact no matter what side you are on. There is no correlating proof either way, that's the fact.
But, I don't really think you care to hear those facts. You have your preset partisan blinders keeping in one direction that will get you to the only result you desire.
 
You have proven nothing, the facts are that tax revenue went up AFTER the Reagan and Bush tax cuts which you cannot explain. Fact remains SS and Medicare are ON BUDGET and shouldn't be. Fact is income tax revenue is more than enough to fund the basic functions of the govt that are required by the Constitution. Never in my life have I had to work so hard to convince people like you that there is nothing wrong with keeping more of your own money and that tax revenue goes up after tax rate cuts.

here is a fact. hope it isn't wasted on you. it's basic arithmetic

IF, as you have asserted, revenues are more than enough to fund the basic functions of government, we would not be facing an ever growing deficit

anticipating your rebuttal, that revenues are being used to fund unConstitutional activities, i will challenge you in advance to identify which of our budgetary items have been found by the courts to be unConstitutional
 
Caterpillar just moved two new divisions to TX out of Illinois.

BAE Systems just lost a $3 billion Army contract to manufacture military vehicles - manufactured at the Sealy,Tx facility for 18 years - the Army awarded a continuation contract to Wisconsin-based Oshkosh Corporation.

I hate it for Texas, but we do want to be 'fair and balanced' - don't we? ;)
 
The military is under the control of the CIC and he hasn't sent them to the border. Don't blame the military for the failure of their CIC
funny how it is ALL paid for with our taxes. i don't blame the military i blame the govt. which is the military and the cic are part of. so again i ask where did the money go?
 
Probably because that is the role of the govt. to protect us, not provide for welfare. Defense costs with the supplementals 750 billion a year out of a 3.8 trillion dollar budget, 1/5 of the budget so IMO defense is paid for over and over again. Read the Constitution.
again i ask if the govt. is here to protect us and tax us and use those taxes for "defense" why do we have 16 million illegals who just walked into this country?
 
BAE Systems just lost a $3 billion Army contract to manufacture military vehicles - manufactured at the Sealy,Tx facility for 18 years - the Army awarded a continuation contract to Wisconsin-based Oshkosh Corporation.

I hate it for Texas, but we do want to be 'fair and balanced' - don't we? ;)

Yes, the GOVT. pulled the contract from Sealy not private industry. Private industry is moving to TX. Amazing how that works when there is a profit motive and incentives. This govt. doesn't have a lot of use for TX and vice versa.
 
again i ask if the govt. is here to protect us and tax us and use those taxes for "defense" why do we have 16 million illegals who just walked into this country?

I suggest you come down to TX and go to the border and find out. The military under the control of the CIC isn't on the border.
 
here is a fact. hope it isn't wasted on you. it's basic arithmetic

IF, as you have asserted, revenues are more than enough to fund the basic functions of government, we would not be facing an ever growing deficit

anticipating your rebuttal, that revenues are being used to fund unConstitutional activities, i will challenge you in advance to identify which of our budgetary items have been found by the courts to be unConstitutional

The basic functions of govt. are open to interpretation. Liberals believe in a massive central govt and our Founders believed in a smaller central govt. Going off the Founders vision there is more than enough revenue to fund what our Founders invisioned for the govt. Much of the Federal Govt. is duplicated at the state level, eliminate the duplication and see how much you have left over. Why do we need a Dept. of Education, Dept. of Energy, HSE Dept, Environmental Dept. I could go on but it goes right over your head. The Constitution gives the Congress the authority to do what it has done but that doesn't mean that was the vision of the Founders who knew that power corrupts and that is why they wanted the power decentralized at the state levels. You really ought to study history.
 
So, I've disproved your numbers with the site (BEA) that you provided and I look foolish? Did you even look at the BEA link I provided? Seriously?

Here is the point I was trying to make, first the govt. as I see it, then the govt. as it is. This comes from the U.S. Treasury Website

Receipt 2009 2008

Individual Income tax 915.3 1,145.7
Corporate Taxes 138.2 304.3

Total 1,053.5 1,450.0

SS/Unemploy/Other

Excise Taxes 97.7 67.3


1,151.2 1,517.3

Expenses

Defense 662.8 616.1
International Affairs
Gen. Science, Space 29.9 27.8
Energy
Natural resources/env
Agriculture
Commerce
Transportation
Community Dev
Education/Train/Social
Health 334.3 280.7
Medicare
Income Security
Social Security
Veterans Benefits 95.5 84.6
Justice
General Govt.
Net Interest 190.9 252.8


Total 1313.4 1262

Notice the surplus

Now the budget we have

Receipt 2009 2008

Individual Income tax 915.3 1,145.7
Corporate Taxes 138.2 304.3

Total 1,053.5 1,450.0

SS/Unemploy/Other 890.9 900.0

Excise Taxes 97.7 67.3


2,042.1 2,417.3

Expenses

Defense 662.8 616.1
International Affairs 38.6 28.9
Gen. Science, Space 29.9 27.8
Energy 4.6 ..5
Natural resources/env 45.7 31.9
Agriculture 14.0 18.4
Commerce 292.5 277.2
Transportation 84.4 77.6
Community Dev 26.2 23.9
Education/Train/Social 78.2 90.9
Health 334.3 280.7
Medicare 430.1 390.8
Income Security 533.9 427.4
Social Security 683.0 617.0
Veterans Benefits 95.5 84.6
Justice 53.4 47.1
General Govt. 17.6 20.3
Net Interest 190.9 252.8


Total 3615.6 3313.4

Wish I could post an excel spreadsheet properly but haven't found out how to do that.

Anyway note the budget total of 3.6 trillion and the reduction in tax revenue in 2009 from 2008.
 
Here is the point I was trying to make, first the govt. as I see it, then the govt. as it is. This comes from the U.S. Treasury Website

Receipt 2009 2008

Individual Income tax 915.3 1,145.7
Corporate Taxes 138.2 304.3

Total 1,053.5 1,450.0

SS/Unemploy/Other

Excise Taxes 97.7 67.3


1,151.2 1,517.3

Expenses

Defense 662.8 616.1
International Affairs
Gen. Science, Space 29.9 27.8
Energy
Natural resources/env
Agriculture
Commerce
Transportation
Community Dev
Education/Train/Social
Health 334.3 280.7
Medicare
Income Security
Social Security
Veterans Benefits 95.5 84.6
Justice
General Govt.
Net Interest 190.9 252.8


Total 1313.4 1262

Notice the surplus

Now the budget we have

Receipt 2009 2008

Individual Income tax 915.3 1,145.7
Corporate Taxes 138.2 304.3

Total 1,053.5 1,450.0

SS/Unemploy/Other 890.9 900.0

Excise Taxes 97.7 67.3


2,042.1 2,417.3

Expenses

Defense 662.8 616.1
International Affairs 38.6 28.9
Gen. Science, Space 29.9 27.8
Energy 4.6 ..5
Natural resources/env 45.7 31.9
Agriculture 14.0 18.4
Commerce 292.5 277.2
Transportation 84.4 77.6
Community Dev 26.2 23.9
Education/Train/Social 78.2 90.9
Health 334.3 280.7
Medicare 430.1 390.8
Income Security 533.9 427.4
Social Security 683.0 617.0
Veterans Benefits 95.5 84.6
Justice 53.4 47.1
General Govt. 17.6 20.3
Net Interest 190.9 252.8


Total 3615.6 3313.4

Wish I could post an excel spreadsheet properly but haven't found out how to do that.

Anyway note the budget total of 3.6 trillion and the reduction in tax revenue in 2009 from 2008.

Ok, I get the point that we are spending a whole heck of a lot more than we are bringing in. No arguments, I don't believe I ever argued that this wasn't the case.

I see that your expenses basically cover the departments that you believe should be kept based on the constitution as written. That's fine, but if you only spend income and corporate tax receipts on these programs and nothing else, then additional taxes (federal or state, I believe you are arguing for state) need to be raised to keep receipts in-line with expenses. Basically, this means a major tax increase to individuals to make up for the variance related to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. So, it's really just a shift in burden to the states. Beyond that, some of the programs you are cutting (i.e. education) will require additional burdens on the states as well. Maybe there are some savings related to efficiencies there but there is no way there is enough to make up for the massive disconnect we currently have.

My main point is that we barely bring enough in for receipts to cover for Defense, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Interest on our debt. That's it. If we can't touch these programs, then we basically have to cut everything else by 100% or shift those burdens to more localized governments (i.e. the states).

From what I can see, shifting the burden rather than cutting spending in areas you would like to keep funding off limits (primarily military) will result in the need for higher taxes overall to individuals and corporations than what is currently included in the deficit reduction proposal. Why? Because military spending is a pretty decent chunk of the spending reductions.
 
Ok, I get the point that we are spending a whole heck of a lot more than we are bringing in. No arguments, I don't believe I ever argued that this wasn't the case.

I see that your expenses basically cover the departments that you believe should be kept based on the constitution as written. That's fine, but if you only spend income and corporate tax receipts on these programs and nothing else, then additional taxes (federal or state, I believe you are arguing for state) need to be raised to keep receipts in-line with expenses. Basically, this means a major tax increase to individuals to make up for the variance related to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. So, it's really just a shift in burden to the states. Beyond that, some of the programs you are cutting (i.e. education) will require additional burdens on the states as well. Maybe there are some savings related to efficiencies there but there is no way there is enough to make up for the massive disconnect we currently have.

My main point is that we barely bring enough in for receipts to cover for Defense, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Interest on our debt. That's it. If we can't touch these programs, then we basically have to cut everything else by 100% or shift those burdens to more localized governments (i.e. the states).

From what I can see, shifting the burden rather than cutting spending in areas you would like to keep funding off limits (primarily military) will result in the need for higher taxes overall to individuals and corporations than what is currently included in the deficit reduction proposal. Why? Because military spending is a pretty decent chunk of the spending reductions.

What the Federal Govt. has done is take on personal responsibility issue that are better handled at the state or local levels. As you can see there are duplicate expenses for Federal and State education for example there are plenty of areas to cut. The problem we have is that there are far too many who want the Federal Govt. to bail their state out for poor choices they made and that should never happen. We don't have a revenue problem we have a spending problem.
 
I'm not saying de-fang the US -- just cut the spending. Britain and France are two of the five most powerful nations on Earth -- they can both enforce their military will across the globe, just as the US can
Utter horsepoop. Combined, they dont have 10% of the US's ability to project power across the globe.
 
I suggest you come down to TX and go to the border and find out. The military under the control of the CIC isn't on the border.
yet our tax dollars are going to defense why do we have 16 million illegals here?
 
Utter horsepoop. Combined, they dont have 10% of the US's ability to project power across the globe.

Where is it the US can legitimately project power viably, affordably, and politically saavy nowadays?

ummmm............................................................
 
I suggest you come down to TX and go to the border and find out. The military under the control of the CIC isn't on the border.
you need to open your eyes and see defense means keeping potential threats to this country out of this country. correct?
 
you need to open your eyes and see defense means keeping potential threats to this country out of this country. correct?
imo the businesses hiring these illegals also have no problem breaking this country's laws they too are potential threats to this country.
 
you need to open your eyes and see defense means keeping potential threats to this country out of this country. correct?

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.
 
imo the businesses hiring these illegals also have no problem breaking this country's laws they too are potential threats to this country.

We already have laws on the books preventing businesses from hiring illegals. Those that break the laws should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
 
What the Federal Govt. has done is take on personal responsibility issue that are better handled at the state or local levels. As you can see there are duplicate expenses for Federal and State education for example there are plenty of areas to cut. The problem we have is that there are far too many who want the Federal Govt. to bail their state out for poor choices they made and that should never happen. We don't have a revenue problem we have a spending problem.
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom