Federal Deficit Commission Draft Proposal a Good Start

Page 5 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

crazyeddie

Guest
MasterComposter":6ieejm26 said:
Wow, this thread turned into a much more stupid squabble than I ever could have hoped!

Seems like no matter the program, there really is no middle ground between "this program has got to be completely ELIMINATED" on one side and "this program is SACRED and can't be touched" on the other.

Our only hope for cutting the deficit is if the Congress and Administration can do a better job finding middle ground than we can...

S**t... we're f**ked...
Well, it's actually the Republicans who are f**ked. Why? Because Republican-endorsed tax cuts would increase the deficit by far more than the spending cuts would reduce it, in keeping with conservative movement policy of refusing to acknowledge the fiscal effects of tax cuts. So the Republican plan to confine spending cuts to domestic discretionary spending is pathetically small in proportion to the scale of the deficit.

In the run-up to the election, Republicans constantly reassured voters that they understood how they had “lost their way” during the Bush era. If we gave them one more chance, they would leave their big-spending days behind them. Faced with the fiscal nightmare of the Obama-Reid-Pelosi agenda, voters reluctantly gave the car keys back to the Republicans. It’s very early, of course, but if Republicans hope to earn and keep that trust, they are going to have to demonstrate that they are a lot more serious about cutting spending than they have shown us thus far.

The trouble is, most voters don't want popular government programs cut. That doesn't leave Republicans with a lot of options, especially since they've just spent the last two years attacking Democrats for threatening entitlements:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democrac ... ement_cuts

Republicans have the same dilemma as before. They can slash entitlement spending and incur the wrath of the voters. Or they can fail to address the deficit, or, more likely, make the deficit worse by cutting taxes. And then the conservative movement can explain that they failed because they lost their way, and the cycle can continue. And Democrats can sit back and watch the GOP get the boot in 2012.
 
P

phaze

Guest
crazyeddie":1qhlwdbg said:
adrenalynn":1qhlwdbg said:
Absolutely, comrade! We should take what belongs to those who don't NEED to be taken care of and give it to those who aren't willing to provide for themselves!

Those damned fat-cats. We must "strip them of their natural character and subjugate them to the power of the united individuals." [Karl Marx] Only then will they understand their proper place!
If you don't like this society, feel free to move to one more to your liking. One more individualistic, with low taxes and small government. You'd probably do well in Somalia, they have almost no government at all. Of course, you're life expectancy will probably be considerably lower there, but hey, at least you'll be able to keep most of your precious money that you hold so dear....until someone slits your throat and robs you of it.

Don't let the screen door hit you in the ass on the way out! ;)
Hehe.. I've suggested Somalia to our right fringe friends in a few threads.... so far, no takers.
 
C

crazyeddie

Guest
adrenalynn":1dtza3zw said:
If you don't like capitalism and freedom of expression, then you can leave. Don't let the screen door hit you on the way out!
I like capitalism and free expression just fine. But not unrestrained capitalism. We saw what happens when unregulated capitalism runs amok: economies collapse, Wall Street vultures make fortunes gambling with other people's money and expect the government to bail them out when they lose it, and hard-working people see their wealth wither away while the fat cats give them selves million-dollar bonuses.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy your free, unrestrained life in Somalia....short though it may be! ;)
 
A

adrenalynn

Guest
No, what you like is the idea of people you can steal from. A thief that pays others to steal for him is just a thief.
 
R

rubicondsrv

Guest
phaze":17jtog2e said:
Hehe.. I've suggested Somalia to our right fringe friends in a few threads.... so far, no takers.


actualy if one could keep the UN do gooders out of the way, somilia could be turned into a profitable enterprise fairly easily...

plenty of cheap labor, ocean access, and land....just need some power plants and you could make a fortune in cheap textile and other hand work products.....
 
J

JeffreyNYA

Guest
crazyeddie":2k2tcd1r said:
JeffreyNYA":2k2tcd1r said:
That's what I said. However I also stated that SS needs to be eliminated. We still need to keep with our obligations to pay the people who have the money coming to them. But a line needs to be drawn as where and when to stop taking that money from people. Do you say in the year 2013 that anyone 30 and under no longer pays into SS. I have no idea if that number is good or not. Way to much math for me to even think about doing honestly. But in order to do this we still have to fund the account to pay for all the people who will still get the funds. That money has to come from somewhere. So by raising the age a couple years and raising the cap a lot. I know that's a tax increase, but honestly how else is it going to get done?
But eliminating SS is not a practical suggestion. It's by far the most popular government program in existence, and people are going to need it more than ever now that fewer retirees have pensions to fall back on. If anything, it will need to be expanded, or else we're going to have a hell of a lot of poor retired people in the decades to come.

Sure it is. I never said it would be fast. A phase out of the program could likely take 50 years to complete. But it just needs to be started now. Hell even if we start with 18 year olds in 2011 pay no SS tax at all and go from there. Like I said it will require sacrifice from some, not sure it can be avoided at all. It will take some time to get everyone off of it, but it needs to be done, other wise it will be a large burden on the country for my daughters generation. It's time really to start moving back to personal responsibility. Its time that personal Finance is taught threw out school so kids have the tools and knowledge to accumulate wealth without the Gov. The more responsible people there are the better off we all are.

I am well aware of what insurance is. I know how much some CEO's make. Its a business after all. I also know how many people are employed by these companies. You really want to see another multi-million in the unemployment line? It's the massive health care bill that was the problem in the first place. Sure I agree there are some things that were needed to be fixed and still do and I would be all for a public version run by the Gov, but they would have to be required to run it like a business and not be funded by me. People still need to pay premiums out of their pocket. If they can do that then fine, go for it. Medicare is already in place to take care of many issues. Just use it as a as needed policy for people without insurance who truly can't afford it. Other than that I think most people are ok.
 
C

crazyeddie

Guest
JeffreyNYA":2ssh0kyb said:
Sure it is. I never said it would be fast. A phase out of the program could likely take 50 years to complete. But it just needs to be started now. Hell even if we start with 18 year olds in 2011 pay no SS tax at all and go from there. Like I said it will require sacrifice from some, not sure it can be avoided at all. It will take some time to get everyone off of it, but it needs to be done, other wise it will be a large burden on the country for my daughters generation. It's time really to start moving back to personal responsibility. Its time that personal Finance is taught threw out school so kids have the tools and knowledge to accumulate wealth without the Gov. The more responsible people there are the better off we all are.
Well, good luck getting rid of SS, you're going to need it:


A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows Americans skeptical of deficit-cutting proposals laid out by the chairmen of a commission appointed by the White House. In the survey, 57% of respondents said they were uncomfortable with gradually raising the Social Security retirement age to 69 over the next 60 years. Some 41% said they were somewhat or very comfortable with the idea.

Roughly 70% were uncomfortable with making cuts to programs such as Medicare, Social Security and defense in order to reduce the deficit, with 27% saying they were comfortable.

And nearly 60% said they were uncomfortable with raising tax revenue through such measures as boosting the gasoline tax, limiting deductions on many home mortgages and altering corporate taxation. Nearly 40% said they were comfortable with those ideas.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 63332.html

So you see, SS is a popular program, no matter how conservatives try to smear it as a "Ponzi scheme" or some other such mischaracterization. And when it comes right down to it, entitlements, once granted, are very difficult to take away.
 
J

JeffreyNYA

Guest
Nobody is comfortable with pain, but sometimes its necessary for growth. Something is going to have to give and its going to have to happen soon or we will not be able to reverse direction at all.
 
C

crazyeddie

Guest
JeffreyNYA":3fv05rcm said:
Nobody is comfortable with pain, but sometimes its necessary for growth. Something is going to have to give and its going to have to happen soon or we will not be able to reverse direction at all.
Why not just lift the cap of wages subject to FICA taxes? That will solve the SS solvency issues at a stroke.

Oh, but that would cause pain to wealthy people, wouldn't it? The people who need Social Security the least. Can't have that, can we?

A much more sensible plan would be the one proposed by Jan Schakowsky, which, in addition to raising the cap on FICA earnings, focuses on:

Ending various corporate tax breaks (132.2 billion in annual savings)
Reducing defense spending (110.7 billion in annual savings)
Taxing Capital Gains and dividends as ordinary income (88.1 billion)
Passing cap and trade (52 billion)
Passing a robust public option (10 billion)
Reducing agricultural subsidies (7.5 billion)

Schakowsky’s plan also focuses on $200 billion in investment spending that would get people back to work, thus saving the federal government in unemployment benefits and raising tax revenues.

This plan goes much easier on the lower and middle classes. After all, we are not responsible for the huge deficit. Bush's two unfunded wars and tax cuts to the rich, plus the bailouts that rescued the wealthy business and financial interests last year, are responsible for most of the deficit. It seems only fair that the wealthy should shoulder most of the "pain" of getting it under control.
 
J

JeffreyNYA

Guest
Ending various corporate tax breaks (132.2 billion in annual savings)
Straight flat tax for everyone and eliminate all loopholes and tax breaks

Reducing defense spending (110.7 billion in annual savings)
I have no problem witha reduction as logn as it means bring troops home. However we still need to research and keep the strongest military out there buy a large percentage


Taxing Capital Gains and dividends as ordinary income (88.1 billion)
No
Passing a robust public option (10 billion)
Fine, if it has to run by the same rules as every other business out there. No unfiar practices and running in the black year after year. It should be an option and not a weapon to destroy insurance companies.

Reducing agricultural subsidies (7.5 billion)
Eliminate them


Schakowsky’s plan also focuses on $200 billion in investment spending that would get people back to work, thus saving the federal government in unemployment benefits and raising tax revenues.
Please, no more Stimulus crap

This plan goes much easier on the lower and middle classes. After all, we are not responsible for the huge deficit. Bush's two unfunded wars and tax cuts to the rich, plus the bailouts that rescued the wealthy business and financial interests last year, are responsible for most of the deficit. It seems only fair that the wealthy should shoulder most of the "pain" of getting it under control
Not going to get into an argument about who is responsible. Truth be told they all are. Not a single one of them is without blame. So that argument needs to stop. Pointing fingers gets no where. The only way things will get done is with compromise. Will that happen? Doubt it.

The rich are no more to blame than the poor who lay around and suck off the system. I would bet you that there are more poor lazy people that are leeching off the system than there are even rich people. The rich should not be punished for being so. Most of them worked hard to get to where they are and most of them do much good with their money. There is no reason they need to pay an extra 15 or 20% more in taxes than you or I.

Plus the 6.2 percent that go to SS. Just think what you could do with 6.2% put away every paycheck into a roth IRA for 46 years. I can bet that you would get much more out of that than you ever would out of SS. There is no reason at all that I should fun people who don't even try to work and just leech. No reason at all.
 
C

crazyeddie

Guest
JeffreyNYA":d7vudt4x said:
Straight flat tax for everyone and eliminate all loopholes and tax breaks
A flat tax is regressive and shifts the tax burden to the middle and lower classes, so it's not what the country needs right now. The middle class has seen it's real net wages shrink over the past decade while the rich has seen it's net income expand enormously. Bad, bad idea.

JeffreyNYA":d7vudt4x said:
"Taxing Capital Gains and dividends as ordinary income (88.1 billion)"

No
"No", what? Why not? We need the revenue. Clinton did it, and business boomed in spite of it, so don't give me some sob story about how it will negatively impact the business climate.

JeffreyNYA":d7vudt4x said:
"Reducing agricultural subsidies (7.5 billion)"

Eliminate them
Some may have to be preserved in order to protect American jobs and market share. Other countries do it, why give them a competitive advantage?

JeffreyNYA":d7vudt4x said:
"Schakowsky’s plan also focuses on $200 billion in investment spending that would get people back to work, thus saving the federal government in unemployment benefits and raising tax revenues. "

Please, no more Stimulus crap
You'd be hard-pressed to find a competent economist that will NOT tell you than in an economic downturn, if businesses are not hiring and unemployment is high, the ONLY way you can stimulate job growth is with government stimulus spending. The stimulus spending thus far was NOT ENOUGH, don't you get it?

JeffreyNYA":d7vudt4x said:
Not going to get into an argument about who is responsible. Truth be told they all are. Not a single one of them is without blame. So that argument needs to stop. Pointing fingers gets no where. The only way things will get done is with compromise. Will that happen? Doubt it.

The rich are no more to blame than the poor who lay around and suck off the system. I would bet you that there are more poor lazy people that are leeching off the system than there are even rich people. The rich should not be punished for being so. Most of them worked hard to get to where they are and most of them do much good with their money. There is no reason they need to pay an extra 15 or 20% more in taxes than you or I.

Plus the 6.2 percent that go to SS. Just think what you could do with 6.2% put away every paycheck into a roth IRA for 46 years. I can bet that you would get much more out of that than you ever would out of SS. There is no reason at all that I should fun people who don't even try to work and just leech. No reason at all.
The "poor" that "leech" off the system are a drop in the bucket compared to the wealth of the top 5% of the people in the country of do nothing with their tax breaks but pocket the money. Poor people, at least, spend every dollar they get their hands on. Giving even more useless tax breaks to the rich, which, as history has proven, has done absolutely nothing to generate jobs, is a foolish waste of resources that could be better put to other uses.
 
V

vladdrac

Guest
Next time there's a war, we should send the ones who have the most to lose. :lol:
 
C

crazyeddie

Guest
JeffreyNYA":3egrdsp1 said:
Straight flat tax for everyone and eliminate all loopholes and tax breaks
A flat tax is regressive and shifts the tax burden to the middle and lower classes, so it's not what the country needs right now. The middle class has seen it's real net wages shrink over the past decade while the rich has seen it's net income expand enormously. Bad, bad idea.

JeffreyNYA":3egrdsp1 said:
"Taxing Capital Gains and dividends as ordinary income (88.1 billion)"

No
"No", what? Why not? We need the revenue. Clinton did it, and business boomed in spite of it, so don't give me some sob story about how it will negatively impact the business climate.

JeffreyNYA":3egrdsp1 said:
"Reducing agricultural subsidies (7.5 billion)"

Eliminate them
Some may have to be preserved in order to protect American jobs and market share. Other countries do it, why give them a competitive advantage?

JeffreyNYA":3egrdsp1 said:
"Schakowsky’s plan also focuses on $200 billion in investment spending that would get people back to work, thus saving the federal government in unemployment benefits and raising tax revenues. "

Please, no more Stimulus crap
You'd be hard-pressed to find a competent economist that will NOT tell you than in an economic downturn, if businesses are not hiring and unemployment is high, the ONLY way you can stimulate job growth is with government stimulus spending. The stimulus spending thus far was NOT ENOUGH, don't you get it?

JeffreyNYA":3egrdsp1 said:
Not going to get into an argument about who is responsible. Truth be told they all are. Not a single one of them is without blame. So that argument needs to stop. Pointing fingers gets no where. The only way things will get done is with compromise. Will that happen? Doubt it.

The rich are no more to blame than the poor who lay around and suck off the system. I would bet you that there are more poor lazy people that are leeching off the system than there are even rich people. The rich should not be punished for being so. Most of them worked hard to get to where they are and most of them do much good with their money. There is no reason they need to pay an extra 15 or 20% more in taxes than you or I.

Plus the 6.2 percent that go to SS. Just think what you could do with 6.2% put away every paycheck into a roth IRA for 46 years. I can bet that you would get much more out of that than you ever would out of SS. There is no reason at all that I should fun people who don't even try to work and just leech. No reason at all.
The "poor" that "leech" off the system are a drop in the bucket compared to the wealth of the top 5% of the people in the country of do nothing with their tax breaks but pocket the money. Poor people, at least, spend every dollar they get their hands on, and they spend it on goods, services, rent, food, clothing, all of which keeps other people in business. Wealthier people, on the other hand, already own almost everything they need. Giving even more useless tax breaks to the rich, which, as history has proven, has done absolutely nothing to generate jobs, is a foolish waste of resources that could be better put to other uses.
 
J

JeffreyNYA

Guest
A flat tax is regressive and shifts the tax burden to the middle and lower classes, so it's not what the country needs right now. The middle class has seen it's real net wages shrink over the past decade while the rich has seen it's net income expand enormously. Bad, bad idea.
The middle class pays very little taxes as is. I am in that group and can say for a fact after all my deductions the Gov gets little if nothing from me. So if most middle class people are like me and do their taxes in a similar fashion then most of them pay little to nothing either. I get most of my states taxes back and half of the property tax I pay comes back as well. So if you don;t like a flat tax. Then go with the fair tax, that has breaks for lower income people. Its a complete consumption tax. And since America is a consumption society then it only makes sense that it would work out well.
 
C

crazyeddie

Guest
JeffreyNYA":12yoqdvk said:
The middle class pays very little taxes as is. I am in that group and can say for a fact after all my deductions the Gov gets little if nothing from me. So if most middle class people are like me and do their taxes in a similar fashion then most of them pay little to nothing either. I get most of my states taxes back and half of the property tax I pay comes back as well. So if you don;t like a flat tax. Then go with the fair tax, that has breaks for lower income people. Its a complete consumption tax. And since America is a consumption society then it only makes sense that it would work out well.
Calling it a "fair tax" is just putting lipstick on a pig. Right now, when you add in the stare and local taxes, are current tax system IS almost flat.....actually, it's barely progressive. Making our federal income tax system into a flat tax would turn this system badly regressive, harming poorer and middle-income people while giving a huge tax windfall to the wealthy. There is a good reason most countries do not use this system: it's inherently unfair and considered unjust.
 
V

vladdrac

Guest
What do you think of we the people, when we turn our backs on what our businessmen do in other countries, because it makes us rich? Are we thieves to?
adrenalynn":2lpxphpy said:
No, what you like is the idea of people you can steal from. A thief that pays others to steal for him is just a thief.
 
P

phaze

Guest
I think you'll see this issue fade away pretty fast.

Now that Republicans have a stake in what is going on - and the solution is pretty straight forward: you either raise taxes, or cut spending (likely affecting the benefits of the masses) - they'll bring this up as an issue less and less.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts