If government spending produces prosperity,

[Canceled13]

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.

Really in the end jobs were created? Is that why the unemployment went up during his time in office? How did you calculate that? If unemployment rises then the number of jobs that may have been created was not enough. If your business earns what $200000 a year you will maybe save $8000 in taxes. How many people will that employ? It did nothing and is doing nothing. You must also be in the top 10% of wage earners or you would not defend this policy. This is a very affluent forum I have been posting for less than 24 hours and run across two that must be in the top 10% of wage earners or they just like to be raped on payday and say thanks while it is happening.

 

[Canceled13]

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.

In essence what you said was that is okay for the government to have a 1T deficit each year and add that to the debt. How is this helping anything. If you do not reduce the debt you are spinning your wheels. If you add to it that is part of the problem. The US and all nations should spend what they take in and not more. That leaves no annual deficit. It is a balanced budget for the year. If the government spends less than they take in that is the only way to reduce the burden of the any given nations debt. Deficit spending is not what you do at home. It should be a requirement that no spending occurs above and beyond the revenue that is taken in. That means no deficit spending. Do you understand that deficits add to the national debt or are you like Reagan and think that debt means nothing?

 

[Minister of Truth]

Drugs are bad.

 

[Canceled13]

Drugs are bad.

Why?

 

[Rationalist]

In essence what you said was that is okay for the government to have a 1T deficit each year and add that to the debt.

No, I am not suggesting that at all. However, we cannot cut $1.5 trillion in spending - it is not politically realistic. Therefore, I propose a 33/33/33 approach to the issue: eliminate 1/3rd of the deficit via spending cuts, another 1/3rd through tax increases, and the remaining 1/3rd through policies that will promote economic growth, and hence increased revenue.

How is this helping anything. If you do not reduce the debt you are spinning your wheels.

It is helping because we'd be adding to the debt at a much slower pace, and working toward closing the deficit altogether.

If you add to it that is part of the problem. The US and all nations should spend what they take in and not more. That leaves no annual deficit. It is a balanced budget for the year.

How do you propose we achieve that, Katie? You seem to believe it can be attained instantaneously. The only way that could be accomplished is slashing $1.5 trillion in one fatal blow. What would you cut, exactly? Please be specific.

But then, I suspect you don't favor spending cuts at all. Judging by your dislike of the wealthy, I suspect you believe we can simply raise their taxes to close the deficit. And I am telling you that it is impossible to do so. Even if you taxed the wealthy at 90%, it would not cover the deficit -- and it would kill any hope for economic recovery.

If the government spends less than they take in that is the only way to reduce the burden of the any given nations debt. Deficit spending is not what you do at home. It should be a requirement that no spending occurs above and beyond the revenue that is taken in. That means no deficit spending. Do you understand that deficits add to the national debt or are you like Reagan and think that debt means nothing?

What I understand is that we cannot cut or tax our way out of this mess. There has to be a balance for it to be politically feasible.

If you have a better idea, I'm open to suggestions.

Why?

 

[Rationalist]

^ that post will confuse the hell out of Dixie, no doubt.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Why?

I was just being sarcastic. I didn't realize that drugs were actually the source of your bizare posts.

 

[Rationalist]

Hey Katie, still waiting for your idea on how to instantly close the deficit...

 

[Canceled13]

No, I am not suggesting that at all. However, we cannot cut $1.5 trillion in spending - it is not politically realistic. Therefore, I propose a 33/33/33 approach to the issue: eliminate 1/3rd of the deficit via spending cuts, another 1/3rd through tax increases, and the remaining 1/3rd through policies that will promote economic growth, and hence increased revenue.



It is helping because we'd be adding to the debt at a much slower pace, and working toward closing the deficit altogether.



How do you propose we achieve that, Katie? You seem to believe it can be attained instantaneously. The only way that could be accomplished is slashing $1.5 trillion in one fatal blow. What would you cut, exactly? Please be specific.

But then, I suspect you don't favor spending cuts at all. Judging by your dislike of the wealthy, I suspect you believe we can simply raise their taxes to close the deficit. And I am telling you that it is impossible to do so. Even if you taxed the wealthy at 90%, it would not cover the deficit -- and it would kill any hope for economic recovery.



What I understand is that we cannot cut or tax our way out of this mess. There has to be a balance for it to be politically feasible.

If you have a better idea, I'm open to suggestions.

I don't understand why you groaned my post asking just the question why. i would have liked to heard how that person arrived at that answer. There was if you read a statement made with no commentary whatever. Just a statement. So in your opinion is it wrong and a bad thing to ask why. That was fairly ignorant on your part. Just saying.

It is possible to work with a balanced budget. Bill Clinton did that and not to many years ago. You spend what you take in. That is what he did and the country was in good shape. The surplus that was taken in Bush gave back instead of putting toward the debt which was dumb at best. What you are saying is that you do not want the government to work with a balanced budget and you want them to overspend their account. That is in fact what you are saying. You are telling me that it adds less to the nations debt. What is wrong with adding nothing to the debt by balancing the budget? Of course you will not pay of the debt tomorrow or in 100 years but with a balanced budget you add no more to that. You figure that one out. I am mystified that you would want them to overspend.

 

[Canceled13]

Hey Katie, still waiting for your idea on how to instantly close the deficit...

Well considering I was sleeping it gets hard to respond. Anyway I answer the question. You don't close the deficit in at fiscal year end you balance the budget like Bill Clinton did.

 

[Rationalist]

I don't understand why you groaned my post asking just the question why. i would have liked to heard how that person arrived at that answer. There was if you read a statement made with no commentary whatever. Just a statement. So in your opinion is it wrong and a bad thing to ask why. That was fairly ignorant on your part. Just saying.

It is possible to work with a balanced budget. Bill Clinton did that and not to many years ago. You spend what you take in. That is what he did and the country was in good shape. The surplus that was taken in Bush gave back instead of putting toward the debt which was dumb at best. What you are saying is that you do not want the government to work with a balanced budget and you want them to overspend their account. That is in fact what you are saying. You are telling me that it adds less to the nations debt. What is wrong with adding nothing to the debt by balancing the budget? Of course you will not pay of the debt tomorrow or in 100 years but with a balanced budget you add no more to that. You figure that one out. I am mystified that you would want them to overspend.

Katie,

I have been very clear: I am opposed to the government spending more than they take in. In fact, I am in favor of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I have explained how I believe we could eliminate 2/3rds of the deficit within a relatively short period of time -- that is, by cutting spending an raising taxes. I have explained how economic recovery can eliminate the remainder of the deficit. Why do you continue to LIE about what I believe?

Yes, we all want a balanced budget. That is a given. I have explained how we can achieve that. YOU HAVE NOT.

So if you are not going to offer an alternative to what I have proposed, this discussion has come to a close.

 

[Rationalist]

Well considering I was sleeping it gets hard to respond. Anyway I answer the question. You don't close the deficit in at fiscal year end you balance the budget like Bill Clinton did.

Actually, the Republicans in Congress balanced the budget, and Clinton fought them every step of the way... but that's a discussion for another time. The fact of the matter is, they were dealing with a much smaller deficit -- approximately $250 billion, compared to our present deficit of $1.5 trillion. The deficit in 2010 is six times larger than the deficit in 1994. So obviously it's going to take a lot more effort to balance the budget.

Again, I've explained what I believe to be a reasonable approach to balancing the budget. You have explained nothing at all.

 

[Canceled13]

I was just being sarcastic. I didn't realize that drugs were actually the source of your bizarre posts.

They are not a source of my posts. My ideology is the source of my posts. I was asking why you asked what you did as there was no explanation for that comment. Thanks.

 

[Canceled13]

Katie,

I have been very clear: I am opposed to the government spending more than they take in. In fact, I am in favor of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I have explained how I believe we could eliminate 2/3rds of the deficit within a relatively short period of time -- that is, by cutting spending an raising taxes. I have explained how economic recovery can eliminate the remainder of the deficit. Why do you continue to LIE about what I believe?

Yes, we all want a balanced budget. That is a given. I have explained how we can achieve that. YOU HAVE NOT.

So if you are not going to offer an alternative to what I have proposed, this discussion has come to a close.

You are using the word deficit as if it is long term. The deficit is the difference between what you take in and what you spend if you spend more than what comes in. This is an annual figure. If the US takes in $1000 and they spend $1100 the $100 is a budget deficit. You can't get rid of that a third at a time. After the fiscal year that $100 becomes national debt. You balance the budget annually. There is no budget deficit if you do that. If you take in $1000 and spend $900 you have a $100 surplus and that can be applied to the debt to reduce that. I am trying to understand what you mean by the 1/3 1/3 1/3 to reduce the deficit that makes no sense. The debt is the total amount that is owed.

 

[Canceled13]

Actually, the Republicans in Congress balanced the budget, and Clinton fought them every step of the way... but that's a discussion for another time. The fact of the matter is, they were dealing with a much smaller deficit -- approximately $250 billion, compared to our present deficit of $1.5 trillion. The deficit in 2010 is six times larger than the deficit in 1994. So obviously it's going to take a lot more effort to balance the budget.

Again, I've explained what I believe to be a reasonable approach to balancing the budget. You have explained nothing at all.

I see where the problem is. You are using the word deficit in place of the word debt. Deficit is a budget annual term. Debt is the total the US or any nation owes.

 

[Canceled13]

Actually, the Republicans in Congress balanced the budget, and Clinton fought them every step of the way... but that's a discussion for another time. The fact of the matter is, they were dealing with a much smaller deficit -- approximately $250 billion, compared to our present deficit of $1.5 trillion. The deficit in 2010 is six times larger than the deficit in 1994. So obviously it's going to take a lot more effort to balance the budget.

Again, I've explained what I believe to be a reasonable approach to balancing the budget. You have explained nothing at all.

You are using the wrong terms to explain yourself. I have been trying to understand your meaning. Knowing the proper and accepted terms for something would help you to make your pointy. You accuse me of saying nothing at all. You don't even know the correct terms and usage. Accounting 101 may help.

 

[Rationalist]

You are using the word deficit as if it is long term. The deficit is the difference between what you take in and what you spend if you spend more than what comes in. This is an annual figure. If the US takes in $1000 and they spend $1100 the $100 is a budget deficit. You can't get rid of that a third at a time. After the fiscal year that $100 becomes national debt. You balance the budget annually. There is no budget deficit if you do that. If you take in $1000 and spend $900 you have a $100 surplus and that can be applied to the debt to reduce that. I am trying to understand what you mean by the 1/3 1/3 1/3 to reduce the deficit that makes no sense. The debt is the total amount that is owed.

I am not confusing anything. You are the one who is confused; either that, or you are too baked to comprehend a word I am saying. Here is what I said earlier, verbatim:

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.

Again, you have explained nothing, and offered no ideas. Thanks for playing,

 

[Canceled13]

I am not confusing anything. You are the one who is confused; either that, or you are too baked to comprehend a word I am saying. Here is what I said earlier, verbatim:

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.

Again, you have explained nothing, and offered no ideas. Thanks for playing,

Your debt is in the trillions. Typing in bold print does not make you any smarter.

 

[Rationalist]

Your debt is in the trillions.

I am aware... but I have said nothing about the debt. We've been talking about the deficit, not the total debt.

As soon as the budget is balanced, we can begin paying down the debt. But that will take decades to accomplish.

Again, you've offered no ideas to balance the budget except to not spend more than we take in. Brilliant idea. Thanks for your contribution.

 

[Canceled13]

I am aware... but I have said nothing about the debt. We've been talking about the deficit, not the total debt.

As soon as the budget is balanced, we can begin paying down the debt. But that will take decades to accomplish.

Again, you've offered no ideas to balance the budget except to not spend more than we take in. Brilliant idea. Thanks for your contribution.

Your deficit in the budget will be added to your debt. This is like talking to a wall. You spend less. You are still saying that is okay for the government to overspend and that is crazy talk.