If you need extra income, do you cut expenses, or raise income?

[Onceler]

Both.

The answers are simple to anyone not seeking elective office. Cut defense by 1/3 (at least), Privatize Social Security, reform Medicare, reduce bureacracy & red tape w/out further cutting programs. Close tax loopholes used only by the wealthy, and temporarily raise taxes on the wealthy.

Such measures would benefit everyone - from the investor class to those who rely on gov't for certain aspects of their lives. No one wins if our fiscal house is a shambles.

 

[The Dude]

When you use gov storm troopers to raid guitar makers you are spending way too much.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Both.

The answers are simple to anyone not seeking elective office. Cut defense by 1/3 (at least), Privatize Social Security, reform Medicare, reduce bureacracy & red tape w/out further cutting programs. Close tax loopholes used only by the wealthy, and temporarily raise taxes on the wealthy.

Such measures would benefit everyone - from the investor class to those who rely on gov't for certain aspects of their lives. No one wins if our fiscal house is a shambles.

To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction. - Sir Isaac Newton.

Cutting defense spending by 33% would cause the loss of a lot of defense contractor jobs. There would also be significant unemployment in every town with an affected military base. Such a large cut, means there would likely be bases closed. Many times, the military base is the largest employer in a town or county. The base may also support a variety of other business in the town, which would all have to close if the base closed. So you would end up losing everything you saved in cuts, probably much more.

Privatizing Social Security has nothing to do with the general budget. Social Security benefits are paid from the SS Trust Fund, not the General Fund. You could completely abolish the Social Security Administration, it wouldn't make a ding in Obama's massive $1.6 trillion deficit.

Reform Medicare? What, you gonna kick the sick old people and poor out in the streets to die? Because that's how MSNBC is gonna play it, 24/7 for weeks on end... good luck trying to get re-elected afterward. I agree, we need to reform Medicare, but it's easier said than done.

Closing loopholes used only by the wealthy? Like what? There is no loophole that only wealthy people get to use, sorry. Nothing in our tax code, even the rates themselves, is based on "wealth" of the individual. Can you just not comprehend that fact? We tax based on INCOME not wealth or net worth. These "loopholes" you speak of, are tax deductions, and they are available to people who qualify, regardless of their net worth. This is the problem when you emotionally latch on to some liberal talking point without thinking. Not to say we don't have things we can cut, the Ethanol subsidies, for example... but a subsidy is not a loophole. Let me decipher what pinhead are talking about when they yammer about "tax loopholes only the wealthy can use." They are talking about your mortgage interest deduction and being able to deduct your 401k contributions. These aren't just used by the wealthy, obviously.

But for entertainment purposes... let's say we not only eliminate all loopholes a 'rich' person could use... let's say we raise their tax rates from the current 36% to, oh say... 100% The resulting revenue would pay for two months of Obama's 2011 deficit. Now, we could totally suspend the Constitution, send in the National Guard and just confiscate the entire net wealth of the Fortune 400 richest people in America... and we could pay for Obama's budget deficit for 2011, but not quite all of the 2010 deficit. So, no matter what we do with rich people, down to lynching them and hanging them, we aren't going to solve our deficit problem.

 

[Onceler]

Dixie, you're such an idiot. Everything I laid out would save trillions & trillions of dollars over a decade; only you could minimize it.

Privatizing SS would have a HUGE impact on the economy, in terms of greater returns for seniors = much more consumer money spent.

And you colossal idiot - you know what loopholes I'm talking about. Why are you so interested in making sure that people who can afford lawyers who know how to take advantage of the system can continue to do so?

As for your "permanent stimulus" program for defense contractors...you crazy liberal! Nothing like pouring money into something we don't need just to subsidize...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie, you're such an idiot. Everything I laid out would save trillions & trillions of dollars over a decade; only you could minimize it.

Privatizing SS would have a HUGE impact on the economy, in terms of greater returns for seniors = much more consumer money spent.

And you colossal idiot - you know what loopholes I'm talking about. Why are you so interested in making sure that people who can afford lawyers who know how to take advantage of the system can continue to do so?

As for your "permanent stimulus" program for defense contractors...you crazy liberal! Nothing like pouring money into something we don't need just to subsidize...

Everything you said is emotive and short-sighted liberal talking points. Nothing you mentioned has no negative ramifications. But then, you don't need to be responsible here, just emotive, right? Because, when it all goes to shit, you can trot out Joe Biden to tell us how "we had no idea, no one saw this coming!" That's the problem with implementing your nitwit ideas, you won't ever take responsibility for the mess they leave behind.

I'll ask you again, pinhead... WHAT TAX LOOPHOLES DO RICH PEOPLE GET THAT OTHERS DON'T????

As for military cuts, I have no problem with a comprehensive effort to cut waste and redundancy in the budget, we need to go through everything and eliminate what is not needed. But this has to be done carefully, and in a smart way, not just out of a knee-jerk liberal reaction because you loathe the military. You fuckwits holler "cut the military" all day long, but you never stop to understand, cutting the military directly cuts jobs and destroys economies. In fact, there is nothing we can cut that does that MORE than the military.

 

[Onceler]

No one here is more emotive than you are, ever. What I laid out is common sense, non-partisan. You only want it the GOP way.

Except for your permanent liberal welfare program for the military - Marx would be proud of that.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

That's undergraduate dude and $2400 is $900 more then what I paid for an entire year (45 trimester hours) when I was in school (insert old age joke here). At todays rates though that's not bad. A typical Big 10 School is gonna cost around $45,000+ for a BA/BS degree (that's just tuition and fees). When I graduated 26 years ago with my BA the cost in tuition and fees was around $7000. The average cost today is around $40,000. That's nearly a 600% increase in only 26 years.

Unions

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Both.

The answers are simple to anyone not seeking elective office. Cut defense by 1/3 (at least), Privatize Social Security, reform Medicare, reduce bureacracy & red tape w/out further cutting programs. Close tax loopholes used only by the wealthy, and temporarily raise taxes on the wealthy.

Such measures would benefit everyone - from the investor class to those who rely on gov't for certain aspects of their lives. No one wins if our fiscal house is a shambles.

I would take it a bit further, but would be ecstatic if the idiots in DC put even HALF of the above to work.

 

[Good Luck]

The more appropriate question would be do you get closer to a balanced budget by increasing taxes, or cutting spending? In most cases, increasing income is, by far, the harder to come by. Who would NOT be making more if they could do so (all else being equal)? Surely if a person finds themselves accumulating debt, or wants to be able to afford a newer car, or a bigger house, etc, they are not going to simply decide to start making more money. If that were possible they'd already be doing so. They will have to cut back on other expenses to keep within their means. Therefore, in the vast majority of cases the far more EFFECTIVE way to arrive at a balanced budget would be to cut spending.

And government is no different in this basic principle. Increasing revenues is not a simple matter of increasing rates. Increased rates invariably have secondary and tertiary effects which result in changes in the way money travels through the economy, so much so that increased rates on upper income brackets can, in some circumstances (such as a sluggish or depressed economy) result in reduced revenues. In fact, the threat of increased taxes is a primary factor in the sluggishness of our economy. With the expiration of the Bush tax cuts looming yet again, businesses are putting off any thoughts of expanding or rehiring until the question of taxes is resolved in some manner. So, as with the individual, with no magical formula available to simply increase revenues to the needed point, the only assured method of arriving at a balanced budget is to cut spending first, then see how much more revenue is needed AFTER the cuts.

So comes the associated question, do you get more taxes by increasing rates, or by doing other things, such as instilling policies that will help put 9 million people back to work? (and no, simply cutting taxes more, at this juncture, would NOT be a significant jobs-generating policy, though making the Bush cuts permanent would certainly have a positive effect.) The additional tax revenues generated by 9 million working people will at least approach, if not exceed the revenues of higher taxes on the rich (not to mention easing the strain on government programs). And even MORE, those 9 million people would also be adding some half-trillion annually to the total economy (based on current median income figures), not just tax revenues, whereas increasing taxes would REMOVE more money from the economy.

And, with jobs (or lack thereof) being the #1 economic issue of concern, if someone can explain to me how taxing the rich more will put people back to work, I'll listen. But I highly doubt anyone can make a legitimate link between the two actions.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Everything you said is emotive and short-sighted liberal talking points. Nothing you mentioned has no negative ramifications. But then, you don't need to be responsible here, just emotive, right? Because, when it all goes to shit, you can trot out Joe Biden to tell us how "we had no idea, no one saw this coming!" That's the problem with implementing your nitwit ideas, you won't ever take responsibility for the mess they leave behind.

I'll ask you again, pinhead... WHAT TAX LOOPHOLES DO RICH PEOPLE GET THAT OTHERS DON'T????

As for military cuts, I have no problem with a comprehensive effort to cut waste and redundancy in the budget, we need to go through everything and eliminate what is not needed. But this has to be done carefully, and in a smart way, not just out of a knee-jerk liberal reaction because you loathe the military. You fuckwits holler "cut the military" all day long, but you never stop to understand, cutting the military directly cuts jobs and destroys economies. In fact, there is nothing we can cut that does that MORE than the military.

It isn't that the wealthy GET breaks that aren't available to everyone, it is that they are ABLE TO USE them and benefit in a far greater way than the average person. Most of the deductions and loopholes in the tax code are not going to be used by anyone who doesn't itemize (which is the bulk of the population)

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No one here is more emotive than you are, ever. What I laid out is common sense, non-partisan. You only want it the GOP way.

Except for your permanent liberal welfare program for the military - Marx would be proud of that.

It has nothing to do with the GOP... that's why you don't want to use common sense!

I made a point, and you can't refute my point, I understand your butt hurts, but no need to call me a Marxist.

Cutting military spending, unless done in a careful and surgical way, will kill economies in towns where military bases are effected, it doesn't take a genius to see that. Of course, if you are submerged in liberal koolaid, you can't really see anything very clearly...soooo...

Still waiting to hear about these loopholes that only rich people can use, and you can't specify.... is that coming anytime soon, goofy?

 

[Minister of Truth]

Washington's revenues are the lowest in more than 60 years.


So does the U.S. have "a spending problem," as Republicans keep repeating in the current debate over how to reduce the nation's record deficits?


Or is the problem that taxes are not high enough?


Some key facts worth considering:

• Federal revenues are expected to drop to 14.8 percent of GDP this year, lower even than the 14.9 percent attained in both 2009 and 2010. There has been only one year since World War II when revenues have been as low as in any of these years: 1950, when the figure was 14.4 percent.

• These historically low rates of taxation have produced a chain of deficits that are the highest since WWII.

• The federal income tax accounted for 41.5 percent of federal receipts in 2010 (down from 49.6 percent prior to the Bush tax cuts of 2001 – 2003).

• Corporate taxes brought in only 8.9 percent, also down sharply.

• Payroll taxes and other "social insurance" payments accounted for 40 percent of total receipts in 2010.

http://factcheck.org/2011/07/fiscal-factcheck/

If the subject is a shopiholic, than they can certainly cut spending. The fact that the US has recently engaged in wars, heightened spending on security agencies, offered bailouts and stimulus spending, and other extreme projects, indicates that we do have a legitimate need to raise some taxes to address the problem, but even without them, we have a spending problem.

 

[Onceler]

The more appropriate question would be do you get closer to a balanced budget by increasing taxes, or cutting spending? In most cases, increasing income is, by far, the harder to come by. Who would NOT be making more if they could do so (all else being equal)? Surely if a person finds themselves accumulating debt, or wants to be able to afford a newer car, or a bigger house, etc, they are not going to simply decide to start making more money. If that were possible they'd already be doing so. They will have to cut back on other expenses to keep within their means. Therefore, in the vast majority of cases the far more EFFECTIVE way to arrive at a balanced budget would be to cut spending.

And government is no different in this basic principle. Increasing revenues is not a simple matter of increasing rates. Increased rates invariably have secondary and tertiary effects which result in changes in the way money travels through the economy, so much so that increased rates on upper income brackets can, in some circumstances (such as a sluggish or depressed economy) result in reduced revenues. In fact, the threat of increased taxes is a primary factor in the sluggishness of our economy. With the expiration of the Bush tax cuts looming yet again, businesses are putting off any thoughts of expanding or rehiring until the question of taxes is resolved in some manner. So, as with the individual, with no magical formula available to simply increase revenues to the needed point, the only assured method of arriving at a balanced budget is to cut spending first, then see how much more revenue is needed AFTER the cuts.

So comes the associated question, do you get more taxes by increasing rates, or by doing other things, such as instilling policies that will help put 9 million people back to work? (and no, simply cutting taxes more, at this juncture, would NOT be a significant jobs-generating policy, though making the Bush cuts permanent would certainly have a positive effect.) The additional tax revenues generated by 9 million working people will at least approach, if not exceed the revenues of higher taxes on the rich (not to mention easing the strain on government programs). And even MORE, those 9 million people would also be adding some half-trillion annually to the total economy (based on current median income figures), not just tax revenues, whereas increasing taxes would REMOVE more money from the economy.

And, with jobs (or lack thereof) being the #1 economic issue of concern, if someone can explain to me how taxing the rich more will put people back to work, I'll listen. But I highly doubt anyone can make a legitimate link between the two actions.

The credit rating downgrade that we just had is going to have a very wide-ranging effect on hiring. The only way to attack the debt we have is a combination of spending reduction & revenue increase.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

LOL at Dixtard, the liar who claims to be a multimillionaire, but is woefully ignorant on the subject of taxation, and 3Dweeb, the 20-something porn addict whose entire life has been financed by either his parents or the government.


Only 3 percent of those making less than $50,000 get the charitable donation deduction, while almost 85 percent of those making $100,000 or more get it, and more than 25 % goes to the top 0.3 percent of households whose income is $1 million +.


More facts that make a well-deserved mockery of the emo ranting of Dixtard and his butt-boy 3Dweebs can be found here:

http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2...Policy+Center+blog)&utm_content=Google+Reader

 

[Good Luck]

Both.

The answers are simple to anyone not seeking elective office. Cut defense by 1/3 (at least), Privatize Social Security, reform Medicare, reduce bureacracy & red tape w/out further cutting programs. Close tax loopholes used only by the wealthy, and temporarily raise taxes on the wealthy.

Such measures would benefit everyone - from the investor class to those who rely on gov't for certain aspects of their lives. No one wins if our fiscal house is a shambles.

Great. But how? "Reform medicare" by itself is an issue that deserves its own BBS, let alone thread.

What , exactly, do we cut from the military? People? Do we tell volunteers willing to serve "no thanks, we got enough already"? Waste, most assuredly, as there is plenty of it out there. (Do flag officers really deserve the equivalent of four-star restaurants for their mess halls?) Reduce or eliminate some of the high end, multi-billion dollar, never-to-be-used-in-reality weapons programs. Simplify where possible. Get rid of privatization - why pay civilians to do the work of running mess halls, clerking, etc. when there are privates and low-level NCOs in need of extra duty to keep them on the straight and narrow? But cut carefully. Be aware that, historically, every time we have made major cuts in our defense profile, we have ended up having to later rebuild at twice the cost of simply maintaining the force structure. I do not see the planet, or the people who like to run it so changed we can anticipate this pattern to no longer apply.

Other than getting SS trust fund away from the general budget, how do you see privatization reducing the costs of running SS?

Reduce bureaucracy - a HUGE one. Any specific ideas on that? For one, I believe there should be ONE government assistance agency. Currently there is a different agency that handles housing assistance, one agency running food stamps, yet another running WIC, and many others formed for other specific programs from child care to education to anything else you can think of. Put it all under one roof would do many things, including eliminating redundancy, vastly reduce the cost of running multiple bureaucracies, reduce inter-bureaucracy feuding, and serve the clients better by being able to offer them a comprehensive assistance package which can then be adjusted in whole to changed circumstances, rather than have them running around filling out multiple forms in quadruplicate at a half dozen or more agencies. It would also end the phenomenon of people losing more in benefits than they gain in increasing their income due to each one of those half-dozen or more programs EACH cutting benefits individually and without regard to the cuts made from other programs. And I disagree with no cutting programs - some should be cut, because others already do the job, and would do it far better if there were but one agency running the whole show. We do owe the less fortunate something out of our society's successes, but we do not owe anyone color TVs and cable service - yet we see people who are getting most if not all their income derived from assistance who have luxuries that working people are finding difficult if not impossible to afford. If not cuts, then most assuredly massive reforms, including the specific of NO cash payments of any kind. Let the assistance service pay for the needed items directly. Cash is far too easy to use for things assistance programs should never be designed to provide.

Closing loopholes - fine. Instill a flat tax with very limited, specific deductions (standard, retirement savings, education), and then tax ALL income, regardless of source, equally after said deductions. No loopholes, no hidden income in foreign banks, just pay your income tax like everyone else. There is still no justification I can see in targeting the wealthy simply for being wealthy.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It isn't that the wealthy GET breaks that aren't available to everyone, it is that they are ABLE TO USE them and benefit in a far greater way than the average person. Most of the deductions and loopholes in the tax code are not going to be used by anyone who doesn't itemize (which is the bulk of the population)

Right, which is exactly what I said... "eliminate the tax loopholes only the wealthy have" is LIBERALSPEAK for "eliminate itemized deductions." They want to do away with the mortgage interest deduction and 401k contributions deductions. They SELL it by telling you it is "loopholes the rich use" or whatever. Yes, there are many tax breaks that only a person in a certain industry or operating a certain kind of small business, may or may not qualify for... so fucking what? All of that stuff wasn't put into place to harm the little guy and help the greedy rich... they were, at the time, debated and argued, and legislated into existence to deal with some other problem we had at the time. Logically, if we remove the tax break, the problem it 'fixed' comes roaring back... but do liberal pinheads want to discuss that? Nope... let's just do it and see what happens next! The Nancy Pelosi approach to governing!

 

[Good Luck]

The credit rating downgrade that we just had is going to have a very wide-ranging effect on hiring. The only way to attack the debt we have is a combination of spending reduction & revenue increase.

Already addressed. There is no assurance that simply raising taxes on the rich will actually result in increased revenues. For instance, what if tax increases yields a spate of layoffs - a phenomenon common in our history? Sure, the rich will be paying more, but now there are more people NOT paying taxes as well as needing assistance from losing their jobs. The combination of fewer taxes from working people and increased costs to assistance programs would more likely result in a net loss, rather than a revenue gain.

Also, the rating downgrade was far more in reaction to the fact that Obama and the current congress did NOTHING, not to mention that the majority of the document berated the lack of cuts in spending, while only mentioning the word "revenue" twice.

But, when it comes to revenues, the question still remains: which method(s) will be more effective in increasing revenues? Raising rates on anyone during an economic downturn has far more potential to make things worse than to make things better.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Already addressed. There is no assurance that simply raising taxes on the rich will actually result in increased revenues.

There is no assurance to the contrary either. We've been cutting taxes on the rich since 2001. How's that working?

For instance, what if tax increases yields a spate of layoffs - a phenomenon common in our history?

If it's as common as you claim, cite examples. I won't hold my breath.

Sure, the rich will be paying more, but now there are more people NOT paying taxes as well as needing assistance from losing their jobs. The combination of fewer taxes from working people and increased costs to assistance programs would more likely result in a net loss, rather than a revenue gain.

How likely is it, fear-monger? Show some projections based on something more substantial than your slavish devotion to protecting loopholes for millionaires.

Also, the rating downgrade was far more in reaction to the fact that Obama and the current congress did NOTHING, not to mention that the majority of the document berated the lack of cuts in spending, while only mentioning the word "revenue" twice.

Cite.

But, when it comes to revenues, the question still remains: which method(s) will be more effective in increasing revenues? Raising rates on anyone during an economic downturn has far more potential to make things worse than to make things better.

How so?


Now, while you're trying to think of a way to avoid responding to my challenges, read, and learn.


I won't tell the Kochs you betrayed them.


Republicans are lying about the federal budget crisis and thus are suffocating America’s chance for an open, honest debate about the tough choices that are ahead.


The GOP’s bogus argument is built on the oft-repeated sound bite that the federal deficit is a spending problem, not a revenue problem. That isn’t true, as the data and U.S. history plainly show. The current budget deficit is MOSTLY a revenue problem.


The most pronounced shift in budget calculations is that federal revenue has dropped from 20.35 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2000 – when the U.S. government was running a surplus – to 14.41 percent of GDP today, with the projected deficit for fiscal 2011 at about $1.5 trillion.


A fair-minded review of the budget shows, too, that most of the contributions from the spending side of the ledger have almost nothing to do with President Barack Obama or what is typically described as “reckless spending” in Washington on domestic priorities.


The only “discretionary” item in the budget that has seen any significant increase in recent years is Defense. The rest of these “discretionary” categories – Education, Transportation, Environment, Agriculture, etc. – have actually decreased as a percent of GDP from around 4 percent in the early 1980s to less than 3 percent today.


http://consortiumnews.com/2011/07/29/the-big-fat-gop-budget-lie/

 

[Minister of Truth]

Either way, if people are able to utilize deductions to avoid paying taxes, then deductions are clearly a problem.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Either way, if people are able to utilize deductions to avoid paying taxes, then deductions are clearly a problem.

Exactly.


And the Norquist Tax Pledge won't allow any signatory to eliminate a single loophole either by new legislation or attrition without a commensurate decrease in taxation.


That means that if you close a loophole you have to lower taxes.


http://www.atr.org/userfiles/Congressional_pledge(1).pdf


http://www.atr.org/userfiles/Senate%20Pledge(2).pdf