G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Why do we have a record defict?
Wha?
Rationalist
Hail Voltaire
Epic raises a valid point. If government spending leads to prosperity, tax revenues should increase and offset the additional spending. Sadly, some liberals appear to believe precisely that. It is a very simplistic, childlike view of the world.
As I have stated before, if government spending produces prosperity why are we spending $3.6 trillion? Hell, why not spend $300 trillion, giving to every American one million dollars? According to leftist logic, there's no reason not to.
As I have stated before, if government spending produces prosperity why are we spending $3.6 trillion? Hell, why not spend $300 trillion, giving to every American one million dollars? According to leftist logic, there's no reason not to.
Canceled13
Canceled
It depends on what government is spending the money on. If they are spending money on wars that had no reason to be fought and rebuilding nations and trying to remake nations in their image. The money is wasted and helps no one except those belonging to the military industrial complex. If the government is spending money rebuilding the infrastructure the money can be creating jobs. This is all about where the money goes.
hello katie, I am Rana and you will now be accused of being me! Good to have new blood here!
It is simplistic to also think that just cutting taxes on the rich will lead to job creation and other myths. We have seen this in the Reagan years, and the Bush years, we lost ground in those times instead of gaining. It is a two step process, cutting spending and raising revenue. Once the spending is controlled, then the taxes may be cut. Starting to wars and lowering taxes was one of the worst moves of the previous administration that put in in peril.
Canceled13
Canceled
Thank you for the welcome.
Canceled13
Canceled
Cutting the taxes on the wealthy stated during the Bush administration and it is evident that no jobs were created. If fact they were lost. They amount of jobs that could be created by such a tax cut would be negotiable and meaningless. Cutting the salaries for the top employees leaves more money for the operation of the business and will add to employment. When the top wage earners are receiving 1000 X more per hour than the actual people that produce it is a sad day. When a CEO receives a bonus for driving a business into the ground that is wrong.
Prosperity comes when the disparity of earning potential is not so great. If a family has difficulty feeding itself and filling the car with gas and they are gainfully employed something is very wrong. The workers produce. The share holders produce nothing but profit for themselves.
christiefan915
Catalyst
LOL, or me. You know any of us liberal leaners are interchangeable!
Canceled13
Canceled
That is funny when the lemming crowd sees liberals as being all the same.
Rationalist
Hail Voltaire
We are in agreement. There are two problems with the Reagan/Bush Jr. tax cuts : 1) There was no accompanying reduction in Federal spending; 2) The tax code was not simplified. The tax code is too complex and too expensive to administer/enforce. Personally, I'd favor a two-rate system, such as 15% on $40K+ and 40% on $10M+, with no loopholes, credits, etc. This would result in a tax hike for the wealthiest Americans. However, I would only support this under two conditions: 1) One-third of the Federal deficit is eliminated via spending cuts; 2) The top bracket is repealed as soon as fiscally permissible, say, after a decade or so, resulting in a single-rate tax code.
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
Raise the single rate to 22% and I'm on board.
Canceled13
Canceled
If you went about it that way because of the size of the debt you would have no money to spend for a few years but cutting spending. The government would not even be able to hire someone to open the mail. Here you go again being a poster boy for the wealthy and protecting their interests. If you are not in the top 10% you certainly should rethink your protectionism idea toward them. You won't find the wealthy out on the streets telling anyone that you need to make more or pay no taxes at all.
Rationalist
Hail Voltaire
What I have proposed would increase revenue, guaranteed. It would also raise the effective rate of taxation on the wealthy, while lowering it for middle-class Americans. Also, I never said anything about the debt. What I said is that we must reduce the deficit by 1/3rd before I would approve of raising taxes.
It is clear that you have no understanding of the economy and taxation, most likely because you have participated in neither.
Canceled13
Canceled
You used the word deficit. Do you mean deficit spending? What do you mean by that when you said cut the deficit 1/3rd. You would still be adding 2/3rds to your debt. Which does nothing to help. So tell me what you mean by the word deficit. If you operated your home on a deficit budget you would not have your home long. You operate on a budget that says if you have $100 you can spend $100. You are saying in your phrase that the government is okay in your eyes if they spend $166 for each $100 they take in. As long as they do not spend $200 it is just fine. That makes no sense. So i figured you meant debt.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
that is not true, jobs were created under bush. and tax cuts are proven to create jobs. its naive to claim that the only way to create jobs is to raise taxes....your theory then means that only government can create jobs.
Rationalist
Hail Voltaire
I'll try explaining this in as simple terms as possible.
Our deficit is currently $1.5 trillion. That's $1,500 billion, or $1,500,000 million. This means Federal spending exceeds revenues by $1.5 trillion annually; in other words, they're taking in approximately $2.0 trillion in revenues, but spending $3.5 trillion. The result is a $1.5 trillion deficit. Understand?
What I propose -- and I believe this is perfectly reasonable -- is to cut $500 billion (15%) across the board. No program should be exempt. This would reduce the Federal deficit to $1 trillion, which, contrary to your claim, does plenty to help. You tell me what's the better scenario: overspending by $1.5 trillion, or overspending by $1 trillion?
Then, to reduce the deficit by another $500 billion, we must increase taxes on the wealthy. I do not believe we should merely raise taxes within the existing code, however. We must simplify the tax code and reduce the costs associated with enforcing the tax code. We must also close loopholes that allow some wealthy Americans to pay a lower percentage than middle-class Americans. All of this can be accomplished without attacking, vilifying, and/or punishing the rich.
Thirdly, we need an environment that fosters economic growth. Simplifying the tax code will help dramatically. In addition, we must review ALL existing regulations on business, and repeal any that do not make sense and/or kill jobs. As the economy recovers, revenues will further increase, closing the remaining $500 billion of the deficit. It happened in the 1990s, and so long as we get spending under control, it will happen again.
Well, obviously we cannot eliminate the entire deficit overnight, unless you're comfortable with slashing $1.5 trillion in spending? I certainly am, but most Americans would disagree. That is why I am taking a pragmatic approach to the issue.
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
To add to Voltaires plan, I propose a robust surplusing off of government materials/land that would be cut. That would, at least temporarily, increase revenues.
Rationalist
Hail Voltaire
Yes, excellent point. If I remember correctly, the Federal government owns around 80% of lands west of Nebraska. Most of these could be liquidated.
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
Everything that goes with it too. Buildings, office supplies, military hardware (well, declassified stuff anyways), furniture, fleet vehicles, ect. Everything must go!