Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/non_aviation/read.main/2477394/

Topic: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: iowaman
Posted 2012-12-17 10:05:03 and read 4932 times.

Since the previous thread reached 300 replies and was largely civil, please continue the discussion here.

Previous thread:
Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? (by tugger Nov 30 2012 in Non Aviation)

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: KBJCpilot
Posted 2012-12-17 12:21:17 and read 4914 times.

Reform the US Tax Code:

If you earn/gain--- you pay--- in taxes. Flat rate. No deductions. Tax form on one page. Earnings are per household.

$0-20,000 - 12%
$20,001-$40,000 - 15%
$40,001-$60,000 - 18%
$60,001-$90,000 - 21%
$90,001-$120,000 - 24%
$120,001-$150,000 - 27%
$150,001-$250,000 - 30%
$250,001-$450,000 - 35%
$450,001-$750,000 - 40%
$750,001+ - 40% plus an additional 5% on capital gains

US Budget- cut all spending by 15%. It doesn't matter what it is, it gets cut. Defense, Medicare, etc. 15% cut. And budgets are frozen for for 3 years. After 3 years, budgets rise at the CPI.

Cut all foreign aid by 20% and use that to strengthen the border.

Amnesty for all illegals 0-21 years old. Any others must apply for citizenship from their home country.

Healthcare for all between the ages of 0 and 18. After 18 you are covered if you are attending college or school up until the age of 25. After that, you are on your own. Healthcare for all over 75 years old. Between 25 and 75 you pay.

That's my utopian suggestion.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: Superfly
Posted 2012-12-17 12:28:30 and read 4911 times.

Same as in the previous thread.
10% flat tax one everyone.
No deductions, loopholes, tax credits, write offs, nothing!
10% across the board.

Cut all those departments I listed in the previous thread and then cuts some more.
Cut spending, cut spending and then cut more spending.
When finished with that, cut more spending.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: Ken777
Posted 2012-12-17 17:58:37 and read 4875 times.

Quoting KBJCpilot (Reply 1):
That's my utopian suggestion.

Unfortunately it would be far from Utopia.

What do you do for those unable to work? Starting with Paras & Quads? Now toss in cancers that make working for extended periods of time out of work? Accident victims that can't work?

How about health care for those who cannot afford the glories of private health insurance in America?

Cutting education by 15%? Maybe we can just graduate the kids from High School after 10 years.  


The reality is that we will see minor changes to current budgets. Conservatives can scream all they wan about cutting costs of Social Security & Health Care, but they will never want to touch the non-government side of both. That tax free ride on employer nanny care or tax free rides on private retirement programs apparently are very affordable while the similar government programs are not. Maybe we need to know how many trillions in tax revenues these non-government programs will cost the Treasury.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2012-12-17 18:02:15 and read 4867 times.

I'll throw in what some others have said, I want there to be some pretty steep cuts, BUT, I think they need to be done more slowly than RIGHT NOW to prevent shock and chaos... I can see how it would

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: KBJCpilot
Posted 2012-12-18 09:37:59 and read 4813 times.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 3):
What do you do for those unable to work? Starting with Paras & Quads? Now toss in cancers that make working for extended periods of time out of work? Accident victims that can't work?

How about health care for those who cannot afford the glories of private health insurance in America?

Cutting education by 15%? Maybe we can just graduate the kids from High School after 10 years.

They would still be covered under whatever federal or state program they are now. But that program will have a 15% decrease in funding just as education and defense would have.

Full healthcare benefits up to 18/25 and over 75 is what I am talking about. If you are disabled or have cancer or whatever else ails you you still have access to other programs as you do now.

If healthcare is extended until 25 for those in college it may be a motivation to pursue higher education which makes for a better qualified workforce which in turn provides good health coverage and benefit packages. Coupled with a student loan interest rate on 3% and a rebate if you are hired and keep your first job for 5 years after graduation it would go a long way of improving the middle class over the long run. Heck, it would also provide for a broader taxpayer base as well.

And we all know that there is too much fraud and waste in all of government today so a 15% cut would hurt a little but it would also get rid of a lot of the unnecessary "programs" and "mandates" that serve no purpose other than to line the pockets of the administrators and vendors who push the wasteful programs.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: Ken777
Posted 2012-12-18 10:06:00 and read 4805 times.

Quoting KBJCpilot (Reply 5):
They would still be covered under whatever federal or state program they are now. But that program will have a 15% decrease in funding just as education and defense would have.

So basically we graduate kids after the 10th grade to save 15% and kick 1 out of 7 cripples out in the street.

The military is somewhat easier - simply start with eliminating the Marines. Maybe half the Air Force - they can outsource almost everything but flying and management of "special weapons".

Quoting KBJCpilot (Reply 5):
If you are disabled or have cancer or whatever else ails you you still have access to other programs as you do now.

People who are disabled have access to Medicare, but you want to cut that? Oooops! Your bad. Letting 1 in 7 simply die without care? How about euthanasia? It's cheap and far less abusive than your approach.

What your proposals overlook is that you are dramatically increasing costs by pushing health care to employers. The least expensive approach is to move core care to a tax based program. Everyone, including the poor, get covered by Medicare and, based on how it works overseas, private policies fall 80% in price for those who want it.

Not only provides the same quality of care, but allows all states to cut out the costs of Medicaid.  

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: Revelation
Posted 2012-12-18 10:35:14 and read 4792 times.

Quoting iowaman (Thread starter):
Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Wouldn't it be nice if we had politicians and bureaucrats that could come up with sensible, workable approaches to this topic? I know "we are the government", but those folks do get paid and paid well to do such things, no?

One thing I hoped would happen as a side effect of Romney picking Ryan was that there'd be a substantive debate around his budget proposals, but it only took Romney a day to say he didn't necessarily support Ryan's budget proposals (or somesuch) and then the topic went quiet, which makes one wonder why he picked Ryan.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: KBJCpilot
Posted 2012-12-18 13:12:04 and read 4776 times.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 6):
So basically we graduate kids after the 10th grade to save 15% and kick 1 out of 7 cripples out in the street.

The military is somewhat easier - simply start with eliminating the Marines. Maybe half the Air Force - they can outsource almost everything but flying and management of "special weapons".

People who are disabled have access to Medicare, but you want to cut that? Oooops! Your bad. Letting 1 in 7 simply die without care? How about euthanasia? It's cheap and far less abusive than your approach.

The feds do not fund all of education. The states fund a majority of it and they would have to make up any difference. The feds need to focus on national security and interstate commerce. For some reason over the past 70 years the government has become everybody's piggy bank and it needs to stop or we will fail as a country in another generation.

As far as defense goes, I'd eliminate the Marine Corps and make the Army's Special Forces/Rangers more flexible and be able to take over the Marine Corps role. I'd also give the Army the Air to Ground responsibility and let the Air Force handle the strategic mission. I'd also tell the ship builders to clean up their houses or we're going to ask other qualified firms overseas to bid on new acquisitions.

Medicare- we waste billions of dollars a year. A 15% cut, with harsh penalties on providers found to be defrauding the gov't, would work. If a doctor is caught committing Medicare fraud, their license is suspended for 6 months. 2nd infraction, 12 months. 3rd, 36 months. Hospital and other organizations, 1st infraction- reduction of reimbursements by 10% for 90 days. 2nd infraction, 20% for another 90 days. 3rd infraction, 30% for 180 days. You'd see a sudden decrease of Medicare billings and less fraud.

Everyone wants cuts and higher taxes but nobody wants to give up their own pet causes. An equal cut across the board, no matter what it is, is fair and equitable for all involved and lets everyone share the burden. In addition, if those programs are so important I'm sure local organizations and non-profits could pick up some of the slack if people really cared about those causes.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: Ken777
Posted 2012-12-18 18:02:12 and read 4753 times.

Quoting KBJCpilot (Reply 8):
The states fund a majority of it and they would have to make up any difference.

There is no gain for the taxpayer if you simply transfer spending to the states. They will want their own 15% cut.

Quoting KBJCpilot (Reply 8):
Medicare- we waste billions of dollars a year.

Actually, as countries like Australia have proven the move to a full Medicare system for all (with private insurance for those who want to pay extra) is far cheaper. We waste hundreds of billions with our current can of worms - which is why we are the most expensive in the world. Not the best - just the most expensive.

Quoting KBJCpilot (Reply 8):
harsh penalties on providers found to be defrauding the gov't, would work.

I'll go with that. But let's make them harsh.

Quoting KBJCpilot (Reply 8):
If a doctor is caught committing Medicare fraud, their license is suspended for 6 months

No. He (or she) goes to prison and the license is permanently pulled. You need to understand that Medicare fraud is not investigated for someone who has a posting error of a treatments code from time to time. Fraud that is investigated will be in the 6 digit range - or close to it.

Major fraud needs prison time and no return to the profession. A few months suspension of license doesn't slow down fraud at all.

I had an interesting conversation with a policeman in Australia some years ago. He was moving to a Medicare Fraud program and talked about how they were using ex-police, statisticians and programmers to go after fraud. His comments were interesting, especially when it came to popping out potentials for investigation. It takes money - not a 15% cut to fraud programs.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2012-12-18 18:51:30 and read 4747 times.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 9):
No. He (or she) goes to prison and the license is permanently pulled. You need to understand that Medicare fraud is not investigated for someone who has a posting error of a treatments code from time to time. Fraud that is investigated will be in the 6 digit range - or close to it.

I agree. This is a very severe offense... not something a doctor simply "drifts into." This requires much more than simple human error

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: Revelation
Posted 2012-12-19 07:12:51 and read 4724 times.

Quoting KBJCpilot (Reply 8):
As far as defense goes, I'd eliminate the Marine Corps and make the Army's Special Forces/Rangers more flexible and be able to take over the Marine Corps role.

As incendiary as the suggestion is, I've heard many experts say the Marines, or at least the part that is there for Normandy-style invasions, is not relevant any more, certainly not to the degree their funding implies. Desert Storm showed that even with the required months of prep time they are just too vulnerable to risk in an invasion, and once ashore they don't have the staying power that Army units have. However I don't really see the cost savings by cutting them out totally.

Quoting KBJCpilot (Reply 8):
I'd also give the Army the Air to Ground responsibility and let the Air Force handle the strategic mission.

Probably should have had decades ago, but not sure how we'd manage that transition now. Like it or not we're neck deep in the F35 program and we're getting one platform for both missions (again, like it or not), so it's a very bad time to break its support and infra chain into two pieces.

Quoting KBJCpilot (Reply 8):
I'd also tell the ship builders to clean up their houses or we're going to ask other qualified firms overseas to bid on new acquisitions.

I'd imagine once we'd train those other builders how to comply with US regs it would not be cheaper.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 9):
Actually, as countries like Australia have proven the move to a full Medicare system for all (with private insurance for those who want to pay extra) is far cheaper. We waste hundreds of billions with our current can of worms - which is why we are the most expensive in the world. Not the best - just the most expensive.

Indeed we could have been getting this right about now, but the health care lobbyists got their "death panel" messages out there enough to frighten the beejesus out of the average joe shmoe.

I think the model makes sense (government takes care of some baseline level of care, private insurance for the rest) but it seems likely then that private industry would "cherry pick" and dump the most expensive treatments onto the public sector.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: par13del
Posted 2012-12-19 10:55:28 and read 4704 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 4):
I'll throw in what some others have said, I want there to be some pretty steep cuts,

Getting somewhere, but the dreaded..........

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 4):
BUT,

There it is

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 4):
I think they need to be done more slowly than RIGHT NOW to prevent shock and chaos... I can see how it would

Unfortunately, this is the same practise that has been taking place for decades, so its just par for the course. Note the new proposals to raise the debt ceiling for a 2 year period, politically, the budget will not be an issue for two years, the debt and interest payments on the other hand.......

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 6):
The military is somewhat easier - simply start with eliminating the Marines. Maybe half the Air Force

The bulk of waste in the US Military is not at the Marines, yes we can talk about the teh F35 and the Osprey, but the Marines wree the last to get the M1, and they still fly Hueys, pound for pound they are the most economical of the services.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 11):
As incendiary as the suggestion is, I've heard many experts say the Marines, or at least the part that is there for Normandy-style invasions, is not relevant any more, certainly not to the degree their funding implies. Desert Storm showed that even with the required months of prep time they are just too vulnerable to risk in an invasion, and once ashore they don't have the staying power that Army units have. However I don't really see the cost savings by cutting them out totally.

I still do not understand why the Marines were deployed ashore in Iraq, once the fake sea bourne invasions were over they should have been sent home. Of course, no one wants to mention that they are the only service meeting their recruiting goals.
Now that things are winding dows, the Air Force wants to gut the Guard to preserve their numbers, in the bigger pictures, the states who fell for the carrot of training with modern equipment suffered the most when their weekend warriors got deployed like full time soldiers, all because the services manpower were cut too much for machines, and recuitment goals could not be met.

The Military Industrial complex needs to be cut big time.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: Ken777
Posted 2012-12-19 13:06:33 and read 4693 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 11):
Desert Storm showed that even with the required months of prep time they are just too vulnerable to risk in an invasion

"Prep" for the Marines was handled by Battleships with their 16" guns. Unfortunately we don't have those on active duty any more and the taxpayers are not willing to pay for 3 or 4 new ones. Or pay for the ammunition. The New Jersey provided gunfire support in Vietnam with WW II ammunition.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 11):
and once ashore they don't have the staying power that Army units have

The Marines tradition was to take a beach head with the Army following up. There are still potential needs for the Marines, but right now we will be cutting personnel from all branches as well as eliminating a lot of the experience. I would not, however, that being a Flag Officer doesn't guarantee we have someone of real value. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...f9-9b50cb4605a7_story.html?hpid=z3 )

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: Revelation
Posted 2012-12-19 16:50:13 and read 4679 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 12):
The bulk of waste in the US Military is not at the Marines, yes we can talk about the teh F35 and the Osprey, but the Marines wree the last to get the M1, and they still fly Hueys, pound for pound they are the most economical of the services.

I agree on that point, but the thing is that I also feel their mission is eroding away underneath them.

Quoting par13del (Reply 12):
I still do not understand why the Marines were deployed ashore in Iraq, once the fake sea bourne invasions were over they should have been sent home. Of course, no one wants to mention that they are the only service meeting their recruiting goals.

Yes, and the two are related. In olden times the Marines did do their invasion duty and once the Army was firmly ashore they gradually were drawn down. Now, the invasion phase isn't that likely to be seaborne, and the Army isn't as big as it once was, so the Marines end up being just another division ashore, yet they aren't really equipped for that. One reason things are kept the way they are is indeed the Marine Corps does well at recruiting due to the way future cannon fodder view them as being so bad-ass.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
"Prep" for the Marines was handled by Battleships with their 16" guns. Unfortunately we don't have those on active duty any more and the taxpayers are not willing to pay for 3 or 4 new ones. Or pay for the ammunition. The New Jersey provided gunfire support in Vietnam with WW II ammunition.

I see your point, but the kind of 'prep' I was referring to was mostly the time needed to get all those brown-water navy assets into place so the Marines could do a seaborne invasion.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: casinterest
Posted 2012-12-20 18:54:06 and read 4646 times.

Well it appears John Boehner has wasted another couple of days pushing his Plan B around. It couldn't garner enough of his own party's support to put it to a vote.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: par13del
Posted 2012-12-20 20:20:36 and read 4637 times.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 15):
Well it appears John Boehner has wasted another couple of days pushing his Plan B around. It couldn't garner enough of his own party's support to put it to a vote.

Does not bode well for the Presidents plan since that had more tax increases that the Republican rank and file were willing to accept in plan B so............
Go over the cliff, finally do some cuts in spending versus cuts in the rate of increase in spending, restore the tax rates that Bush had cut on a temporary basis and lets see how the economy responds in the first two to three months of the new year.
One thing we know, the financial experts who did not see what they did to create the GFC may not really know what they are talking about when they say austerity which they have pushed for all the other world's economies may actually also be good for the good ole USA.

Will be some interesting reading in the media tomorrow, the Maya calendar may have also included financial predictions, time will tell.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: casinterest
Posted 2012-12-21 09:09:55 and read 4609 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 16):
Does not bode well for the Presidents plan since that had more tax increases that the Republican rank and file were willing to accept in plan B so............

No, it bodes very well for the President's plan. The Democrats were voting against it because it didn't raise taxes enough on the wealthy, and the GOP couldn't get the votes because ot the ignorant tea party members that can't do math.

The President's plan will do fine in the senate and house. Boehner was hoping for a black eye by getting a more 2% friendly bill in place, and found out he had some very math challenged members of the house.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: Ken777
Posted 2012-12-21 09:47:31 and read 4605 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 14):
I was referring to was mostly the time needed to get all those brown-water navy assets into place

As we saw in GW I, it takes time for all branches to get assets in place, even when we are outsourcing as much as possible.

The other problem is that you need to have the assets in the first place, you need to train with those assets and you need to maintain those assets. That includes support ships for fuel, ammunition, food and replacement parts for the fleet.

Quoting par13del (Reply 16):
Does not bode well for the Presidents plan

and

Quoting casinterest (Reply 17):
No, it bodes very well for the President's plan.

I believe this is too fluid to bode well for either side.

My bet now is that we will enter 2013 without addressing those laws that die on Dec 31st. That eliminates the need to talk about raising taxes - discussions can be on what taxes are to be cut. Much easier to negotiate.

I can also see Obama opening up the negotiations to include the top leaders in both houses & both parties. We will see a few weeks where there will no accommodation by either side, but eventually we will get the deals needed.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2012-12-21 09:54:09 and read 4604 times.

What have the Democrats put on the table? I have not been impressed by what I've seen so far. We need cuts on defense, Republicans. We need to raise some taxes in order for a compromise to go through, Republicans. Democrats, make a case for entitlements, but realize, the Republicans have a case for their programs and just accept that they're gonna need to be cut. Democrats, look at the spending deficit. Do you really think we can continue this spending? Cut.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: par13del
Posted 2012-12-21 10:08:38 and read 4599 times.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 17):
The Democrats were voting against it because it didn't raise taxes enough on the wealthy, and the GOP couldn't get the votes because ot the ignorant tea party members that can't do math.
Plan B was proferred because a number of Republicans were already up in arms over the increases Boehner was giving up and the lack of cuts Obama was offering, hence a plan called fall back.
The President's plan will do fine in the senate and house.

Anything POTUS comes up with will get through the Senate since they have rules and "nuclear" options to prevent a fillibuster, fortunately / unfortunately (whichever side you support) the House is controlled by the Republicans and any presidental plan that does not include real spending cuts and only pushes increased taxes on the rich will not get passed. However loud folks scream and call Tea Party etc. etc. etc. they have been consistent for the last few years on the need for real cuts in government spending, so I afree with the following..........

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18):
My bet now is that we will enter 2013 without addressing those laws that die on Dec 31st. That eliminates the need to talk about raising taxes - discussions can be on what taxes are to be cut. Much easier to negotiate.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18):
We will see a few weeks where there will no accommodation by either side, but eventually we will get the deals needed.

I give it a few months because folks may well want to see how investors react to reduced government spending, the idea that a recession is the automatic result of the fiscal cliff may not be accurate, time will tell

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: casinterest
Posted 2012-12-21 10:31:16 and read 4597 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 20):
House is controlled by the Republicans and any presidental plan that does not include real spending cuts and only pushes increased taxes on the rich will not get

The problem with Boehner's plan b is he couldn't even get his Tea party on board. it means that
1. The last few months of negotiations have been meaningless, as his endgame didn't even match up to what he was peddeling. I don't mind the GOP controlling the house. What i do mind is the idiocy that is coming from members that want to cut only spending to bridge the gap, when there are revenue tools as well.

Quoting par13del (Reply 20):
I give it a few months because folks may well want to see how investors react to reduced government spending, the idea that a recession is the automatic result of the fiscal cliff may not be accurate, time will tell

I think this game of chicken will play out badly. Those amounts of tax increases on the middle class and uncertainty in federal budgets will spell recession in a heartbeat. Especially when the stock market tanks.,

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: Ken777
Posted 2012-12-21 12:18:48 and read 4586 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 19):
Democrats, make a case for entitlements, but realize, the Republicans have a case for their programs and just accept that they're gonna need to be cut.

Conservatives can talk a good line, but they will be just as strong on spending money when a military base in their area is set to be closed. They need to deliver the bacon, just like Democrats.

I've said it before - if we need to cut Social Security then we also need to cut the tax free ride on personal retirement accounts. And we need to pull the tax on contributions pulled from those accounts now. That alone is going to make a huge hit on the nations debt.

And it we need to cut funding for the poor and elderly we need to cut the tax free ride on employer nanny care. Another very large flow of funds into the Treasury.

In other words, before calling for cuts to "government entitlements" start looking at "private entitlements".

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: par13del
Posted 2012-12-21 13:49:04 and read 4578 times.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 21):
Those amounts of tax increases on the middle class and uncertainty in federal budgets will spell recession in a heartbeat.

Except the rates were always meant to be at that level, the Bush cuts were never supposed to be permament.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 21):
Especially when the stock market tanks.,

I honestly do not give too much credance to the street, a lot of their experts drove small business into debt by taking the line that their stock was not risky enough, hence they expanded too fast, borrowed to much and fell major prey to the GFC. The thousands of jobs lost of the street in some eyes was good payback for the havoc they wrecked on the small business community.
Also, was the street no gung ho in the summer when it looked like the big package was going to pass rising when the deal looked good then falling when it went sour??? So is spending cuts do actually take place bu going over the cliff, do they really care how it was accomplished just as long as it was cut?

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: casinterest
Posted 2012-12-22 19:52:40 and read 4514 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 23):

The rates were never meant to be permanent, but their amount and sweeping impact will hurt the econony if they are yanked all at once. Until their is no debt nationally , the current tax rates should be the floor.

Spending needs to be frozen at current levels for at least 5 years, with any adjustment contingent on 10% of a Budget surplus.

Wall Street and the population feed of each other nowadays. When things are bad, they can become really bad. It is not in any politician's best interest to be responsible for bad things . Te GOP just passed the buck on a solution . They are now directly responsible for anything that goes wrong

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: seb146
Posted 2012-12-22 20:50:05 and read 4529 times.

Congress should read these threads. They would learn so much about America!

Quoting casinterest (Reply 24):
The rates were never meant to be permanent, but their amount and sweeping impact will hurt the econony if they are yanked all at once.

Because the economy was hurting until 2001?

Quoting casinterest (Reply 24):
Until their is no debt nationally , the current tax rates should be the floor.

How would that work with little income?

Quoting casinterest (Reply 24):
Wall Street and the population feed of each other nowadays

That is one thing I have never understood: Why does the private sector tie everything into what the government does when the private sector screams about "don't let government into the private sector!!". I don't get it. It is a one-way street?

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: NorthstarBoy
Posted 2012-12-23 03:33:02 and read 4502 times.

Quoting KBJCpilot (Reply 1):
$20,001-$40,000 - 15%

i make around 27K per year, under your tax scheme i'd go from paying zero taxes (I often get a refund) to 3100 dollars a year? Yikes! No thank you!

my idea is:

0-25000 no taxes
25000-50000-5 pct
50001-100000-10pct
100001-250000-20pct
250001-500000-30 pct
500001-1 Million-40 pct
over 1 million and 1 dollars-45 pct.

Another change i'd make is to treat capital gains/interest/dividends for anyone under 75 as ordinary income. Once you reached age 75 it would be considered retirement income and taxed at 50 percent of your last full taxable income rate.

I'd also treat stock options for anyone under age 75 as ordinary income. The value of the options would be calculated based on the value of the stock at the end of the last trading day of the year. This would prevent those in the higher brackets from switching their compensation from mostly cash to cash and stock or all stock to get into a lower tax bracket.

Maybe in the way of our education system, we can go the way of the british system where grades K-10 are compulsory but grades 11-12 are optional. Those who don't want to go to college can get an Ordinary Diploma which allows them to get a job or join the military at age 16 and those who want to go to college continue for the final two years and get an Advanced Diploma. Maybe while we're at it we can also streamline our school system to just primary and secondary, K-5 go to primary school, grades 6-10 go to secondary school. Those who want to pursue their A-Diploma can go on to smaller Upper Schools that are associated with but separate from the secondary schools.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: Superfly
Posted 2012-12-23 04:27:33 and read 4512 times.

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 26):
i make around 27K per year, under your tax scheme i'd go from paying zero taxes (I often get a refund) to 3100 dollars a year? Yikes! No thank you!



If I were in charge, you'd pay only $2,700. Then you'd be paying your "fair-share". After all, the current President keeps yapping his mouth about people paying their "fair-share" and "shared sacrifice". There are a ton of more people earning $27,000 per year than there are billionaires so it's time folks in your bracket chip in. There are only 425 billionaires in the United States (enough to fill one 747) so they will not be able to balance the budget and pay off the debt alone.
So vote for me!  

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: par13del
Posted 2012-12-23 05:35:28 and read 4503 times.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 24):
Spending needs to be frozen at current levels for at least 5 years, with any adjustment contingent on 10% of a Budget surplus.

Sounds reasonable, however, I do not see the democrats in either the House on the Senate supporting such a plan, the cry is that the country is growing so spending has to increase, now if you want to do as in past years and lower the RATE of increse by 10%...........

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 26):
Once you reached age 75 it would be considered retirement income and taxed at 50 percent of your last full taxable income rate.

I am all for taxing capital gains at rates that would allow buying and selling, rates too high result in all manner of schemes to hide the gains, and can lower trading activity, the more voloume the more money to be made by all parties.
However, not sure I like a 50% rate after the age of 75, I would lower the age to 65 as well as the rate. Ultimately, we need our seniors to enjoy life when they retire, when you consider how fast paced and how much additional work each individual has to perform in todays work environment along with increasing the retirement age, folks on retirement have used up so much of their bodies that they are now heading directly to long term medical care.
Moving them out of the work force earlier also creates more jobs and opertunities for younger persons to move up within companies.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: NorthstarBoy
Posted 2012-12-23 06:32:15 and read 4499 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 28):
However, not sure I like a 50% rate after the age of 75, I would lower the age to 65 as well as the rate.

I should be more clear. Under my scheme, the tax rate wouldn't be 50 percent but rather, if you were in my theoretical top tax bracket of 45 percent, once you turn 75 you'd only pay 22.5 percent.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: par13del
Posted 2012-12-23 06:36:29 and read 4495 times.

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 29):
if you were in my theoretical top tax bracket of 45 percent, once you turn 75 you'd only pay 22.5 percent.

Ah, got it, works for me, the more money we let our seniors keep the more they can provide for themselves.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2012-12-24 11:11:21 and read 4431 times.

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 26):
my idea is:

0-25000 no taxes
25000-50000-5 pct
50001-100000-10pct
100001-250000-20pct
250001-500000-30 pct
500001-1 Million-40 pct
over 1 million and 1 dollars-45 pct.

The problem with levels like this is someone making $50000 a year will get $47500 after taxes but someone making $50001 would get $44999.90 after taxes... I would hope any change would be more of a slope rather than steps.

Under your plan (but eliminating these steps), someone making $25000 would pay 5%, $25100 would pay 5.03% or whatever (too lazy to do the math,) and so on

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: StarAC17
Posted 2012-12-24 14:36:02 and read 4413 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 31):
The problem with levels like this is someone making $50000 a year will get $47500 after taxes but someone making $50001 would get $44999.90 after taxes... I would hope any change would be more of a slope rather than steps.

That isn't true as taxes only effect income above the specified benchmarks and people forget this and Obama doesn't stress it enough.

In that case the person earning $50001 pays the 5% on every dollar over $50000 to prevent someone from earning less on purpose making the economy less efficient as it encourages laziness.

That person earning $50001 would net $47500.90 not $44999.90, the 10% rate is only taxed on $1

When Obama talks about raising rates on people earning more than 250K the tax hikes take effect on every dollar earned above that benchmark.

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 26):
i make around 27K per year, under your tax scheme i'd go from paying zero taxes (I often get a refund)

Just because you get a refund doesn't mean you are paying nothing you are just paying less than what is taken out of your pay in a given year. You could be paying nothing, in some years I have gotten refunds but it no where is close to the amount I paid to the government.

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 26):
Another change i'd make is to treat capital gains/interest/dividends for anyone under 75 as ordinary income. Once you reached age 75 it would be considered retirement income and taxed at 50 percent of your last full taxable income rate.

There is a reason that capital gains is lower as it encourages private investment I would argue that the rate is too low right now but it should be about 60-70% of the marginal income rate for how much is earned on an investment. Lets say and investor earns $20 million and pays 15% capital gains on it (ignoring any deductions). The investor nets $17 million. Lets put that against lets say a professional athlete takes home $20 million in straight income pays 35% on the same amount of money and nets $13 million he pays more than double the taxes (3 million for the investor vs 7 million for the athlete).

The investor takes more of a risk and should be rewarded for it but not at the level they are now and in the case of the 35% income rate I would make capital gains about 21-25% (about 60-70% of 35%)

Quoting par13del (Reply 28):
Sounds reasonable, however, I do not see the democrats in either the House on the Senate supporting such a plan, the cry is that the country is growing so spending has to increase, now if you want to do as in past years and lower the RATE of increse by 10%...........

It isn't just democrats who are spendthrift, remember the last guys started 2 wars and cut taxes. Not exactly model fiscal behavior either.

The government should be spending now to get the economy growing and when it does pick up then they need to start with the austerity to have the end goal of sustained surpluses to bring the debt down. If government spending could be seen as investment then this would be no issue but the US government has lost the trust of the people.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2012-12-24 16:25:16 and read 4403 times.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 32):
That isn't true as taxes only effect income above the specified benchmarks and people forget this and Obama doesn't stress it enough.

I did not know this, to be fair though, I wasn't accusing Obama of anything cynical here. This makes sense. I wish, however, EVERYONE paid taxes, even if it's 0.5% or something... still "contributing" yet not burdening

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: seb146
Posted 2012-12-24 17:27:53 and read 4399 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 33):
I did not know this,

That is the problem: Most (not all but most) people follow the punditry. FOX screams about how taxes will be raied on everyone and HuffPo screams about how that is a lie and it devolves into "no, you are stupid!"

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 33):
I wish, however, EVERYONE paid taxes, even if it's 0.5% or something... still "contributing" yet not burdening

All working people pay taxes. I can guarantee that when I send in my returns, I will not get back every penny I paid. That's the way it works. We would all be happy to pitch in a little more if we could be guaranteed affordable health care and/or lowering the deficit like they promise they would. I just don't want my money to be squandered on no-bid contracts.

There was a re-run of Randi Rhodes today. She explained that one part of these no-bid government contracts says that the company says "you (the government) will pay us X amount but we will need you to pay us more later for other expenses that we will bill you for later." Which is where we get $27 screwdrivers and $12 a gallon contaminated water for the troops to use. The right-wing wants waste, fraud and abuse taken out of MediCare and Medicade, but the military has none.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: StarAC17
Posted 2012-12-24 19:30:34 and read 4390 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 33):
I did not know this, to be fair though, I wasn't accusing Obama of anything cynical here. This makes sense. I wish, however, EVERYONE paid taxes, even if it's 0.5% or something... still "contributing" yet not burdening

I didn't claim you were and I apologize if I gave that impression.

My point is that if Obama wants to sell to the American public that he is intending to raise taxes on people making over 250K a year he needs to stress that its on all income earned over 250K a year and not on the amount earned before.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: Ken777
Posted 2012-12-26 11:31:35 and read 4342 times.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 35):
he needs to stress that its on all income earned over 250K a year and not on the amount earned before.

People "pass through"" each tax bracket. That means that someone going through the 10% bracket pay tax at the 10% rate for the income in that bracket.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: Dreadnought
Posted 2012-12-26 18:41:50 and read 4315 times.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 34):
We would all be happy to pitch in a little more if we could be guaranteed affordable health care and/or lowering the deficit like they promise they would.

I agree (except for the affordable health care part - whenever the government gets involved it will either become more expensive or rationed). That's why I hope we do go "over the cliff", because that is the only way we are going to see some spending cuts, because right now neither side has proposed to cut anything in 2013 (As I said before, I don't give a rat's ass about promises in a 10-year window - only 2013 matters).

Quoting seb146 (Reply 34):
The right-wing wants waste, fraud and abuse taken out of MediCare and Medicade, but the military has none.

Huh? Where did you hear that?

By the way, I was talking to someone today and it became clear that some people don't understand what this fiscal cliff is all about. He was under the assumption that the Clinton tax rates would go up as of 1/1/2013, and your deductions from your paycheck would increase. But actually it affects your 2012 earnings. The AMT and tax rates already went up to Clinton levels back at the end of 2011. Everyone simply assumed that an agreement would be reached during this year that would retroactively extend the Bush tax cuts, but that hasn't happened. Here's how HR Block explains it.

http://www.hrblock.com/free-tax-tips...paignId=em_mcm_4636_0001_NoSegment

Quote:
Two things creating Taxmageddon (for individual filers)

AMT (alternative minimum tax) has not been patched since Dec. 31, 2011 expiration
More than 70 common tax breaks (extenders) millions rely on have not been renewed

Summary

Whether it is called “Taxmageddon” or the “fiscal cliff,” millions of taxpayers at all income levels are at risk of paying more in taxes this year.

Some could end up owing money to the IRS instead of getting a tax refund as they have previously
- Tax breaks they used to take may no longer exist
- Taxpayers soon could find themselves in difficult financial positions

AMT

What is AMT? The first alternative minimum tax was introduced in 1969. Its purpose was to catch high-income earners who avoid paying taxes due to certain tax breaks. The AMT as we know it today, a complicated system of adjustments and preference, was introduced in 1982 and has the same purpose – to make sure everyone pays at least some tax.

- If AMT will be patched for inflation (the last patch expired Dec. 31, 2011) is one of the biggest unknowns facing taxpayers
- - Many aren’t aware of its impact on their tax liability
- - EXAMPLE: If the AMT is not patched, a family earning $85,000 with two children in college could go from a tax refund of $1,056 tax refund to owing $1,400 (analysis by The Tax Institute)
- Could revert to pre-2001 levels
- 34 million taxpayers could be hit with the alternative minimum tax – many for the first time
- - Taxpayers who had grown accustomed to getting a tax refund could be hit with a hefty tax bill
- Can affect taxpayers for different reasons and it is not always clear when or if it will apply
- - May kick in because of the taxpayer’s income, certain deductions, or even because the taxpayer claimed certain credits
- Hardest hit would be taxpayers in high-income tax states (California, New York and New Jersey)

Expired tax breaks (extenders)

- 2012 tax bills will be larger for millions of taxpayers because more than 70 tax provisions expired Dec. 31, 2011, and have not been renewed
- The tax breaks impact all income levels and touch college students, teachers and homeowners (the tax breaks following won’t exist for tax year 2012 unless renewed)
- - Tuition and fees deduction – worth up to $4,000 per tax return
- - State and local sales tax itemized deduction – most impacting the millions of taxpayers who may reside in states with no income tax
- - Educator expense deduction – worth up to $250 per teacher to help cover unreimbursed classroom expenses
- - Mortgage insurance premium – deductible as residence interest
Charitable distributions from IRAs – non-taxable up to $100,000

Conclusion
Because the extension of these tax breaks requires action by Congress and the President, there isn’t much taxpayers can do to avoid this situation. However, they should be aware of what tax breaks may and may not be available for 2012 in order to plan for their impact. Seek individual advice from a tax professional.


So all this is going to bite you in the ass pretty soon, and all of you had better have a couple of grand extra cash in the bank in case you have an extra payment due in March instead of a refund.

I hope we do go over the cliff, so that people see that taxes go up on everyone, that cuts happen in spending programs that will be noticable, and to everyone's surprise the deficit will still be at an unacceptably high level. Hopefully this will teach all these morons who insist on thinking that simply raising taxes is enough.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: casinterest
Posted 2012-12-27 06:19:23 and read 4283 times.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 25):
Because the economy was hurting until 2001?

No, the problem is that people have spent their tax cuts already. Mortgages, college, cars. Jacking the rates up all at once will have painfull ramifications to many people. I manage my money well, but I would still be hurt quite a bit if everything went up at once. the collision of the spending cuts in the federal side would also erase a few million jobs.
A Recession would be highly likely.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 25):
How would that work with little income?

My point was the national debt, not personal debt.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 25):

That is one thing I have never understood: Why does the private sector tie everything into what the government does when the private sector screams about "don't let government into the private sector!!". I don't get it. It is a one-way street?

Not a one way street. There are many in the private sector that think that Government is all regulations and taxes. They don't recognize the benefits that Government spending bestows. Go to any town near a military base and ask them what would happen if the military base suddenly dissapeared. They see the benefits more directly than a person that supplies raw materials to a government contractor or business.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 37):

I hope we do go over the cliff, so that people see that taxes go up on everyone, that cuts happen in spending programs that will be noticable, and to everyone's surprise the deficit will still be at an unacceptably high level. Hopefully this will teach all these morons who insist on thinking that simply raising taxes is enough.

I don't think anyone thinks the debt or deficit is at an acceptable level. However the Government has set tax levels so low and manufactured money out of thin air while running deficits for so long that most people ignore the defecit as it is a magical number that just keeps going up.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: par13del
Posted 2012-12-27 08:39:31 and read 4259 times.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 38):
Go to any town near a military base and ask them what would happen if the military base suddenly dissapeared. They see the benefits more directly than a person that supplies raw materials to a government contractor or business.

One of the primary differences between the democrats and republicans when it comes to military spending, the only time when both sides do come together is on base closing.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: Dreadnought
Posted 2012-12-27 15:58:39 and read 4223 times.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 38):
I don't think anyone thinks the debt or deficit is at an acceptable level.

Then why do the Democrats (and to a lesser extent the Republicans) not propose anything that comes close to bringing the deficit back down to a relatively acceptable ~3% or so? Obama's proposals have been nothing more than a bad joke. The GOP's "Plan B" is only marginally better. Going over the cliff, IMHO, is the best option. A) It's already the law, so nothing needs to be done. B) It takes a big whack out of spending - not enough, but it's a good start. C) It raises taxes on everyone, and not just picks on a small minority that can be bullied by the majority. D) It will illustrate that, in spite of steep tax increases on everyone, our deficit will still be too high, and maybe, just maybe, people will begin to understand that the problem is not insufficient taxation, it's too much spending.

I'm ready for it. I've got a couple of grand extra in the bank, fully expecting that I will have to write a big check in March, instead of expecting a refund. Believe me, I have no love of paying taxes, but I support doing it if we all do it together.

Which brings me to another question - The left loves to harp on "solidarity". They love to show solidarity when it comes to demanding stuff. But when it comes to paying for it, the like to point at the "rich" down the road, and demand that he pay for it.

Let's show some solidarity. Let's all suffer together, for the good of the country. A little suffering is good for the soul.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: zckls04
Posted 2012-12-27 16:17:10 and read 4219 times.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 40):
Going over the cliff, IMHO, is the best option.

Given the religious war in congress, it's really the only option.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 40):
Which brings me to another question - The left loves to harp on "solidarity". They love to show solidarity when it comes to demanding stuff. But when it comes to paying for it, the like to point at the "rich" down the road, and demand that he pay for it.

Without wishing to reignite old wounds (to use my favorite mixed metaphor of the day), the outrage from the left seems less outrageous if you just stack up the numbers- the rich pay less tax because their earnings are often from capital gains etc.

I realize the GOP philosophy is that capital gains should be a special case w.r.t taxation, however many on the left think it should be taxed the same as any other income. It's a bit of a leap to go from this to "the like to point at the "rich" down the road, and demand that he pay for it"(sic). That may apply to a minority of unionized drones who see the world as a "Metropolis"-style dystopia, but for most others I think their position is more pragmatic than that.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: Dreadnought
Posted 2012-12-27 19:06:04 and read 4204 times.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 41):
Without wishing to reignite old wounds (to use my favorite mixed metaphor of the day), the outrage from the left seems less outrageous if you just stack up the numbers- the rich pay less tax because their earnings are often from capital gains etc.

But they pay a higher percentage of the nation's taxes than in just about any industrialized nation, relative to the amount of wealth they earn/have. OECD data points to the US tax system being too progressive already.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 41):
I realize the GOP philosophy is that capital gains should be a special case w.r.t taxation

Not just a GOP position, it is the position on capital gains taken in many industrialized countries, where capital gains is often not taxed at all. It comes down the the old saw, "If you want more of something, subsidize it, if you want less of something, tax it." The more you tax capital gains, the less capital gains you will get, along with economic growth, than you otherwise would get.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 41):
however many on the left think it should be taxed the same as any other income.

The low-information voters out in force...

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 41):
It's a bit of a leap to go from this to "the like to point at the "rich" down the road, and demand that he pay for it"(sic). That may apply to a minority of unionized drones who see the world as a "Metropolis"-style dystopia, but for most others I think their position is more pragmatic than that.

Hardly a leap - it appears to the core belief of Obama and the current Democratic Party leadership.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: StarAC17
Posted 2012-12-27 20:16:06 and read 4193 times.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 37):
I agree (except for the affordable health care part - whenever the government gets involved it will either become more expensive or rationed). That's why I hope we do go "over the cliff", because that is the only way we are going to see some spending cuts, because right now neither side has proposed to cut anything in 2013 (As I said before, I don't give a rat's ass about promises in a 10-year window - only 2013 matters).

There in lies the problem that causes pretty much all problems "Short term thinking"!!

If you are suggesting that the US federal government run a balanced budget next year at all cost you will accomplish two things.

- Driving the US and world economy back to 2008 at best affecting the whole world.
- Not being able to balance the budget because the government revenues will drop

This should be a process that does at little damage as possilble to the US economy because if the economy doesn't grow all it will be harder and harder to accomplish it.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 41):
I realize the GOP philosophy is that capital gains should be a special case w.r.t taxation, however many on the left think it should be taxed the same as any other income.

I am not a conservative but capital gains should be a special treatment as opposed to regular income.

When you invest you take risk and when you work you are performing a service for a set out compensation and you are not taking any risk.

I think that capital gains should be lower than regular income but not over 50% lower and earlier in this thread I suggested it should be 60-70% of income tax rates. I will also say the guy who owns a stock for one day isn't really investing and they are gambling and if you are looking to be paid capital gains on a stock you have to hold it for a certain length of time say a quarter.

Remember the stock market was intended for the average person to invest in corporations with the average stock held today for literally seconds that isn't an investment.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: Ken777
Posted 2012-12-27 20:44:24 and read 4193 times.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 42):
OECD data points to the US tax system being too progressive already.

Which is why some one like Romney can make over $20 Million and pay 13%. Forget the "rate" and look at around 300 pages of loopholes with Romney's return. Does the OECD data points look at just how many loopholes and hiding places that the wealthy actually have? Doubt that big time.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 42):
Not just a GOP position, it is the position on capital gains taken in many industrialized countries, where capital gains is often not taxed at all.

WHich is so stupid. Capital gains is simply another term for "income" and should be considered normal income.

We have moved so far from a rational system that the middle class is shrinking and the absurdity of bowing down to the wealthy is a joke.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 42):
The more you tax capital gains, the less capital gains you will get, along with economic growth, than you otherwise would get.

I believe that is BS. An investor will be looking at the investment and will evaluate that investment at a "net of tax position". Some will leave and that opens the door for those who fill in the void.

If an investor wants to leave the market because they will have to pay taxes on income at a normal level then let them go. We'll rebound from them fairly quickly and be better off in the end,

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: casinterest
Posted 2012-12-27 20:45:18 and read 4189 times.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 40):
Then why do the Democrats (and to a lesser extent the Republicans) not propose anything that comes close to bringing the deficit back down to a relatively acceptable ~3% or so

Because they don't want to piss off the voters.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 40):
Going over the cliff, IMHO, is the best option

No, it is too much , too fast. We need to put in the handicap ramp for access here. The cuts and the revenue both need to come, bu not at a pace that destroys current economic growth. This is why I like the tax increase on the rich, not because it is the only increase that needs to occur but it is the one that should occur first. As the economy progresses, then we can rasie the revenue a bit more. We need to keep raising revenue, until we are paying principal and interest on he national debt. We also need to control and cut spending. It has to be done gradually over itme, but we need to do it. The revenue increases also give a failsafe for future legislatures to use should another unforseen deficit issue occur.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 40):
I'm ready for it. I've got a couple of grand extra in the bank, fully expecting that I will have to write a big check in March, instead of expecting a refund. Believe me, I have no love of paying taxes, but I support doing it if we all do it together.

You and I both have it, but there are millions that do not. And there are millions who will lose their jobs due to this fiscal cliff.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 40):
Which brings me to another question - The left loves to harp on "solidarity". They love to show solidarity when it comes to demanding stuff. But when it comes to paying for it, the like to point at the "rich" down the road, and demand that he pay for it.

The right has the same problem, but they mask it by wrapping it in the flag and calling it honor and defense as they spend more than can possibly be raised in revenue.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 40):

Let's show some solidarity. Let's all suffer together, for the good of the country. A little suffering is good for the soul.

A little suffering is good, but asking for blood letting it a bit extreme, and doesn't really accomplish what you want it too. Just ask George Washington.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 41):

Given the religious war in congress, it's really the only option.

It's the best option until Jan 3rd when Boehner is speaker and then the GOP can politically stand for tax cuts . Just perverted can kicking. The Dems need the GOP voite, and the GOP feels that they can't cross their Dictator: Heir Norquist. THerefore they wait till it is no longer a tax increase, but a tax decrease.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 42):
But they pay a higher percentage of the nation's taxes than in just about any industrialized nation, relative to the amount of wealth they earn/have. OECD data points to the US tax system being too progressive already.

They pay a higher percentage of the gross taxes. Not a higher percentage relative to their own funds. Just ask the single income no kid renters in NYC that make above 65 K what they pay.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 42):
Not just a GOP position, it is the position on capital gains taken in many industrialized countries, where capital gains is often not taxed at all. It comes down the the old saw, "If you want more of something, subsidize it, if you want less of something, tax it." The more you tax capital gains, the less capital gains you will get, along with economic growth, than you otherwise would get.

However we need taxes to pay off the defecit, never mind just keeping the current budget funded.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 42):

The low-information voters out in force...

It should be taxed as it is money working for the owner as an investement. Just the same hte investor can write off their losses.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 42):
Hardly a leap - it appears to the core belief of Obama and the current Democratic Party leadership.

It is not the core beleif. The core belief of the democratic party is that together we can do better.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: Dreadnought
Posted 2012-12-28 07:57:34 and read 4151 times.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 43):
There in lies the problem that causes pretty much all problems "Short term thinking"!!

Sorry, but the "long term thinking" is a fraud in this case. People are calling for spending cuts over 10 years - which is absolutely non-binding on any future congress. That is BS.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 43):
If you are suggesting that the US federal government run a balanced budget next year at all cost you will accomplish two things.

- Driving the US and world economy back to 2008 at best affecting the whole world.
- Not being able to balance the budget because the government revenues will drop

I understand fully that pulling back sharply on spending immediately will probably trigger another recession. But we have to do it. A lot of our so-called "growth" the past couple of years has simply been government printing money, and the piper has to be paid.

A few years ago I advocated strict spending limitations after the 2008 crash. Had we followed that path, the 2008-2009 shock would have been a bit deeper, but by now the economy would have been running at full throttle, without the 16 trillion debt load.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 44):
Does the OECD data points look at just how many loopholes and hiding places that the wealthy actually have? Doubt that big time.
Quoting casinterest (Reply 45):
They pay a higher percentage of the gross taxes. Not a higher percentage relative to their own funds.

The OECD study looked at the percentage of total taxes paid by the top 10% vs how much money the top 10% earn compared to everyone else.

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/news-o...es-has-most-progressive-tax-system

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 44):
WHich is so stupid. Capital gains is simply another term for "income" and should be considered normal income.

But it's already been taxed. If IBM employs you, it can deduct your salary, on which you pay income tax, so that it is only taxed once. But if you buy IBM stock with money which you already have paid taxes on, and IBM makes money which, after corporate income tax can be added to the equity value of your stock, why should you have to pay tax on precisely the net gain that IBM paid income tax on?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 44):
I believe that is BS. An investor will be looking at the investment and will evaluate that investment at a "net of tax position". Some will leave and that opens the door for those who fill in the void.

If an investor wants to leave the market because they will have to pay taxes on income at a normal level then let them go. We'll rebound from them fairly quickly and be better off in the end,

If an investor wants a return of no less than 30% over 5 years, after tax, that threshold is much harder to attain with higher taxes, and thus fewer opportunities (especially the marginal ones) will be funded. The little guy who wants to open a restaurant or incorporate his little widget factory is going to have a more difficult time raising the funds.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 45):
No, it is too much , too fast. We need to put in the handicap ramp for access here.

I'm fine with a gradual approach. One like this - in 2013, every single government check that is written (with the exception of Social Security, which is off-budget, and wages for military enlisted men) will be cut by 5%. That means all federal employees, 5% less money for Lockheed Martin, 5% less fuel for the carrier groups, etc. All elected politicians get a 10% whack off their salary.

In 2014, we do it again - another 5% cut across the board. Another 10% off of politicians.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 45):
You and I both have it, but there are millions that do not. And there are millions who will lose their jobs due to this fiscal cliff.

Life's a bitch, ain't it? We have been living large, spending money we did not have for years - especially recently. Well, the credit card company is at the door, and the repo man is putting the car on the truck as we speak.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 45):
However we need taxes to pay off the defecit, never mind just keeping the current budget funded.

I keep repeating this, but the message does not seem to sink in. TAXES CANNOT FUND THE DEFICIT.

Obama's desired tax increases amount to (according to CBO) around $70-$80 billion of extra revenue per year. But his projected deficits are greater than $1 trillion every year for the next 10 years. In 2013 it will likely be around $1.5 trillion, at the current rate.

$80 billion is only 5% of the deficit. Taxes are not the problem. Spending is the problem.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 45):
It is not the core beleif. The core belief of the democratic party is that together we can do better.

When someone else pays for it.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: mt99
Posted 2012-12-28 08:58:49 and read 4139 times.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 46):
If IBM employs you, it can deduct your salary, on which you pay income tax, so that it is only taxed once.

I may be wrong, but this the way i see it is that its because its a different chain altogether.

What you are saying is akin to: If i buy a service from IBM, and I pay taxes on that service, why would IBM have to pay taxes on that income?

If that is the case, why pay taxes at all? The money flows thru a chain and it gets taxes along the way. If you only tax the first link in the chain - then who pay taxes?

I can do whatever i want with my salary. I can start a new chain, and be taxed just like every other chain.. why should it be any different?

To me this "taxed once" argument is bogus. It has been taxes several times before it reaches your bank account.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: zckls04
Posted 2012-12-28 09:02:16 and read 4137 times.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 46):
But it's already been taxed. If IBM employs you, it can deduct your salary, on which you pay income tax, so that it is only taxed once. But if you buy IBM stock with money which you already have paid taxes on, and IBM makes money which, after corporate income tax can be added to the equity value of your stock, why should you have to pay tax on precisely the net gain that IBM paid income tax on?

You're getting taxed once on amount A (income tax from the amount you started with) and once on amount B (the amount you end up with minus the amount you started with). At no point is any of your money double taxed on your tax return. It may be subject to corporate tax from IBM's perspective, but so what? The money will be subject to sales tax if you spend it, or inheritance tax if you leave it to your children. Double taxation across different entities happens all the time.

I actually think that capital gains should be taxed at a lower rate than regular income (primarily for selfish reasons), however arguments like this:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 42):
Not just a GOP position, it is the position on capital gains taken in many industrialized countries, where capital gains is often not taxed at all. It comes down the the old saw, "If you want more of something, subsidize it, if you want less of something, tax it." The more you tax capital gains, the less capital gains you will get, along with economic growth, than you otherwise would get.

are a far more compelling case to me than the "double taxation" stuff, or any of the boring "Obama and the Democrats are rich-hating scum" stuff.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 45):
It's the best option until Jan 3rd when Boehner is speaker and then the GOP can politically stand for tax cuts . Just perverted can kicking. The Dems need the GOP voite, and the GOP feels that they can't cross their Dictator: Heir Norquist. THerefore they wait till it is no longer a tax increase, but a tax decrease.

A good point- I hadn't thought of that. A neat way to keep their promise and do what is necessary at the same time.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: casinterest
Posted 2012-12-28 10:52:49 and read 4113 times.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 46):
The OECD study looked at the percentage of total taxes paid by the top 10% vs how much money the top 10% earn compared to everyone else.

Still not the same thing. Your comparison is based on how much taxes the super rich pay. Not the relative rate to their earnings. We have a progressive system, and even the super rich pay the same 10% at the bottom of the scale that everyone does. Their reach into the stratosphere of income inequality in the US is what puts their share of the taxes so high.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 46):
But it's already been taxed. If IBM employs you, it can deduct your salary, on which you pay income tax, so that it is only taxed once. But if you buy IBM stock with money which you already have paid taxes on, and IBM makes money which, after corporate income tax can be added to the equity value of your stock, why should you have to pay tax on precisely the net gain that IBM paid income tax on?


Because IBM is paying you for the service of using your equity for corporate support. It is like interest.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 46):
I'm fine with a gradual approach. One like this - in 2013, every single government check that is written (with the exception of Social Security, which is off-budget, and wages for military enlisted men) will be cut by 5%. That means all federal employees, 5% less money for Lockheed Martin, 5% less fuel for the carrier groups, etc. All elected politicians get a 10% whack off their salary.

In 2014, we do it again - another 5% cut across the board. Another 10% off of politicians.

Still possibly too steep. I would rather do it over 10 years with guaranteed 10% reductions.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 46):
Well, the credit card company is at the door, and the repo man is putting the car on the truck as we speak.

But there is no repo man, and if we were really paying a credit card company, we would not only reduce our spending on new items, but we would accelerate our payments on the old debt to minimize the interest charges.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 46):
I keep repeating this, but the message does not seem to sink in. TAXES CANNOT FUND THE DEFICIT.

Obama's desired tax increases amount to (according to CBO) around $70-$80 billion of extra revenue per year. But his projected deficits are greater than $1 trillion every year for the next 10 years. In 2013 it will likely be around $1.5 trillion, at the current rate.

$80 billion is only 5% of the deficit. Taxes are not the problem. Spending is the problem.

Part of it gets handled if the economy grows faster than anticipated. Part of it gets handled by inflation as people hit the higher tax rates. Taxes are part of the solution just as spending is part of the solution, and it is not in a linear matter. Unless you don't believe in compound interest. Most of the 1 trillion dollar gap is due to folks retiring earlier, and not enough folks working to pay into social security and medicare. Rather they are on the recieving end.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 46):

When someone else pays for it.

Sure because we all don't use and pay for the same services at some point in our lives. This belief in flat math, and time singularity is a hallmark of GOP shortsightedness that has overtaken and destroyed the US economy.

it was the GOP belief that paying for a war in IRAQ and Afghanistanc would reap rewards in the future worth the sacrifice of the extra spending. Why is that the GOP only believes in overspending when it means they can bomb the hell out of people with little proof of future rewards? Why does the GOP cower into a fetal position and blame the people in this country that are suffering, when they use magnanimous gestures to get spending approved for the poor and oppressed in foreign countries? The GOP has always been about other people's money which is why they have a full congress protecting 2% of the populations tax rates.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: StarAC17
Posted 2012-12-28 15:11:11 and read 4087 times.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 46):
Life's a bitch, ain't it? We have been living large, spending money we did not have for years - especially recently. Well, the credit card company is at the door, and the repo man is putting the car on the truck as we speak.

No repo men are coming to seize US assets and that is merely in your head.

The US is still the place where foreign interests want to put their money at basically 0% because of all the places to invest money the US is still the safest. Had the risk of a US default actually been there then there would have been more downgrades to its credit rating and the only one that occurred was because congress threatened a default and didn't want to take a balanced approach to curbing the deficit.

Furthermore what is needed to get the fiscal house in order is very easy to accomplish. Canada accomplished similar budget issues in the mid 1990's and got everyone together and ran over a decade worth of surpluses.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 46):
I understand fully that pulling back sharply on spending immediately will probably trigger another recession. But we have to do it. A lot of our so-called "growth" the past couple of years has simply been government printing money, and the piper has to be paid.

I agree with you but for a different reason. The do-nothing approach is the most balanced because the US is under-taxed for what its government does as Clinton era tax rates are not the end of the world and the cuts IIRC are fairly balanced.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 49):
Most of the 1 trillion dollar gap is due to folks retiring earlier, and not enough folks working to pay into social security and medicare. Rather they are on the recieving end.

Good point, spending hasn't just skyrocketed since 2009 (it has gone up) but what has been lost are taxpayers to put money into the system.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: Dreadnought
Posted 2012-12-28 18:22:16 and read 4072 times.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 49):
Still not the same thing. Your comparison is based on how much taxes the super rich pay. Not the relative rate to their earnings.

Which is irrelevant, as it is relative to measure not provided. How much of total taxes the top 10% pay relative to how much of the pie they earn is very relevant.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 49):
Still possibly too steep. I would rather do it over 10 years with guaranteed 10% reductions.

10% over 10 years? That's 1% reduction per year, or just over $100 billion. With the deficit at $1.5 trillion per year, that's not enough in my opinion.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 49):
But there is no repo man, and if we were really paying a credit card company, we would not only reduce our spending on new items, but we would accelerate our payments on the old debt to minimize the interest charges.

Which we are going to. Remember the Fed statement from a couple of weeks ago - we have been funding the debt with ultra-short-term paper, and that will explode as soon as annual interbank rates reach as little as 3 or 4%, much less than the 10-12% we saw under Carter. That will explode the deficit.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 49):
Part of it gets handled if the economy grows faster than anticipated. Part of it gets handled by inflation as people hit the higher tax rates. Taxes are part of the solution just as spending is part of the solution, and it is not in a linear matter. Unless you don't believe in compound interest. Most of the 1 trillion dollar gap is due to folks retiring earlier, and not enough folks working to pay into social security and medicare. Rather they are on the recieving end.

You are talking about deficit rates that are in the traditional range, 2%, 3%, even 4% at a stretch were deficit rates that we could grow out of. Our current deficit rates are far beyond that. 1) You can't grow out of them, 2) You are setting yourself up for an interest rate/inflation time bomb, and 3) The only winner in that case will be the government - us poor shmoes will be left holding our dicks.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 50):
The US is still the place where foreign interests want to put their money at basically 0% because of all the places to invest money the US is still the safest.

Only because most of the world with freely circulated currency is in the same pile of crap we are. But look at the few currencies of well-run countries. Have you seen what the Swiss Franc has done vs the Euro or the Dollar in the past few years?

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 50):
I agree with you but for a different reason. The do-nothing approach is the most balanced because the US is under-taxed for what its government does as Clinton era tax rates are not the end of the world and the cuts IIRC are fairly balanced.

I think the government does way too much. Unemployment benefits for 2 years (and Obama wants more)??? Farm subsidies. Stop it.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 50):
Quoting casinterest (Reply 49):
Most of the 1 trillion dollar gap is due to folks retiring earlier, and not enough folks working to pay into social security and medicare. Rather they are on the recieving end.

Good point, spending hasn't just skyrocketed since 2009 (it has gone up) but what has been lost are taxpayers to put money into the system.

Good point if it were correct, but it isn't. Social Security payments and receipts are "off-budget". The $1.5 trillion deficit does not reflect any such change you are talking about. It's a separate fund (and yes, it too is going into the red).

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: StarAC17
Posted 2012-12-28 20:04:53 and read 4067 times.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 51):
Only because most of the world with freely circulated currency is in the same pile of crap we are. But look at the few currencies of well-run countries. Have you seen what the Swiss Franc has done vs the Euro or the Dollar in the past few years?

Same with the Canadian and Australian dollars which are both doing very well because along with Switzerland those 3 countries have been responsible because they have too. However those countries are not big enough to have any real clout as big global economies.

Things may be changing though as the Canadian dollar is being touted as another reserve currency and the Swiss Franc has its reputation.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 51):
I think the government does way too much. Unemployment benefits for 2 years (and Obama wants more)??? Farm subsidies. Stop it.

I agree that the US government does do too many unnecessary things and not enough of the stuff that actually improves their economy in the longer term.

Yes stop farm subsidies, stop the war on drugs and subsidies to oil companies who don't need them that we can agree on. I would also give in on unemployment benefits in that you would lose them if you were offered a job that paid more than the benefits.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 51):
Good point if it were correct, but it isn't. Social Security payments and receipts are "off-budget". The $1.5 trillion deficit does not reflect any such change you are talking about. It's a separate fund (and yes, it too is going into the red).

Regarding SS the point was there are more retirees collecting it and not paying taxes and the greater point is that the level of spending hasn't exploded (although it has gone up) but the the amount of revenue has also gone down.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: par13del
Posted 2012-12-29 05:56:20 and read 4031 times.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 38):
I don't think anyone thinks the debt or deficit is at an acceptable level.

I quoted them separately because the comment below can be regarded as a contradiction.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 38):
However the Government has set tax levels so low and manufactured money out of thin air while running deficits for so long that most people ignore the defecit as it is a magical number that just keeps going up.

Hence people think the debt and deficit is irrelevant, the summer battles proved that, the general consensus then was that the Tea Party and their backers were lunatics talking about debt, deficit and government spending.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 43):
If you are suggesting that the US federal government run a balanced budget next year at all cost you will accomplish two things.

Another problem in this entire issue, people taking points and going to the extreme, I did not see Dread talking about a balance budget next year but true spending cuts, not cuts in the rate of increase in spending, I quoted his post which I think generated your response, apologies if incorrect.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 40):
Going over the cliff, IMHO, is the best option. A) It's already the law, so nothing needs to be done. B) It takes a big whack out of spending - not enough, but it's a good start. C) It raises taxes on everyone, and not just picks on a small minority that can be bullied by the majority. D) It will illustrate that, in spite of steep tax increases on everyone, our deficit will still be too high, and maybe, just maybe, people will begin to understand that the problem is not insufficient taxation, it's too much spending.
Quoting casinterest (Reply 49):
Your comparison is based on how much taxes the super rich pay. Not the relative rate to their earnings. We have a progressive system, and even the super rich pay the same 10% at the bottom of the scale that everyone does. Their reach into the stratosphere of income inequality in the US is what puts their share of the taxes so high.

I regard this as similar to various European nations charity demands of the USA. The USA is presently the largest donor to charities, but various government want the USA to tie their donations to GDP, why exactly? Definately more money available for spending one side effect of which is less work for the receivers.
In this regard we have a problem with how much money people make, no different than athletes, the public has no problem with billions made by owners as they are intelligent and work for a living, but massive problems with millions made by thug athletes who do nothing but play with balls.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 50):
because the US is under-taxed for what its government does as Clinton era tax rates are not the end of the world and the cuts IIRC are fairly balanced.

I like this comment, what exactly does the US government do???, just based on comments on this site and elsewhere:
Pay way too much for health care
Too large a military
Waste money with wealthy political donors pet projects
No and or crumbling infrastructure
Wars
NO universal health care
And a host of other things that persons are always complaining about, yet you make the comment that they are under taxed for what the government does, we all know that they waste a lot of money, so how does increasing taxes to give them more money make them more efficient, one can draw the rational conclusion that they will waste more.

A lot is said outside the USA about the low tax rates that American citizens pay in comparion to other nations, however, I do not think it is because of the spending habits of the US government.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: StarAC17
Posted 2012-12-29 09:35:11 and read 4010 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 53):
And a host of other things that persons are always complaining about, yet you make the comment that they are under taxed for what the government does, we all know that they waste a lot of money, so how does increasing taxes to give them more money make them more efficient, one can draw the rational conclusion that they will waste more.

I look on what the US government provides compared to what the Canadian government provides to me and its very similar at the end of the day and our taxes are higher and our government has its fiscal house in order. The fact that Canada has universal health care saves us money because in the US the taxpayer foots the bill for uninsured people going to the ER which is why US health care costs double per capita other first world nations.

Efficiency counts as well but balancing the US budget should be an "All of the above scenario".

The reason I think that taxes need to go up is that no one can agree on what to cut. Every congressman wants cuts as long as its not in their district.

Here are things that I think should be cut:

War on Drugs (legalize and regulate them)
Corporate Subsidies of all kinds and all future bailouts
Defense and entitlements

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: Dreadnought
Posted 2012-12-29 19:25:14 and read 3985 times.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 54):

I look on what the US government provides compared to what the Canadian government provides to me and its very similar at the end of the day and our taxes are higher and our government has its fiscal house in order.

Here is an example of the problem. The Senate passed a $60 billion emergency aid package for Hurricane Sandy, but only $9 billion of it is aimed at short -medium term assistance. Most of the money is pork, totally unrelated to Sandy.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/cong...id-bill-its-typical-of-washington/

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: casinterest
Posted 2012-12-31 06:00:50 and read 3893 times.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 51):

Which is irrelevant, as it is relative to measure not provided. How much of total taxes the top 10% pay relative to how much of the pie they earn is very relevant.

If that is relevant, then the cost of living and basic survival for the poor is just as relevant.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 51):

10% over 10 years? That's 1% reduction per year, or just over $100 billion. With the deficit at $1.5 trillion per year, that's not enough in my opinion.

It would be a 10% cut from today, which over the course of 10 years and assuming rising revenues would do more to pay off the debt than anything else. Please stop using 1.5 trillion as your deficit number . Last years was 1.1 trillion and this year is projected to be 900 billion.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 51):
Which we are going to. Remember the Fed statement from a couple of weeks ago - we have been funding the debt with ultra-short-term paper, and that will explode as soon as annual interbank rates reach as little as 3 or 4%, much less than the 10-12% we saw under Carter. That will explode the deficit.

Yep, and at that poinbt the Government will need the revenues as well as spending cuts to get to a balanced budget.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 51):
You are talking about deficit rates that are in the traditional range, 2%, 3%, even 4% at a stretch were deficit rates that we could grow out of. Our current deficit rates are far beyond that. 1) You can't grow out of them, 2) You are setting yourself up for an interest rate/inflation time bomb, and 3) The only winner in that case will be the government - us poor shmoes will be left holding our dicks.

But when interest rates skyrocket and revenues go up, the trick will be to hold spending back, and then you will see extremely high revenues start to take care of the defecit.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 51):
Good point if it were correct, but it isn't. Social Security payments and receipts are "off-budget". The $1.5 trillion deficit does not reflect any such change you are talking about. It's a separate fund (and yes, it too is going into the red).

They aren't off budget. They are part of the general fund when all of the borrowing is done on budget.
Yes Social security is in Jeopardy of only eventually paying out what it brings in during a year, but a simple change in the years of qualification for it, would change that.

Quoting par13del (Reply 53):
Hence people think the debt and deficit is irrelevant, the summer battles proved that, the general consensus then was that the Tea Party and their backers were lunatics talking about debt, deficit and government spending

But the Tea Party has members that I wouldn't trust to run a cash register at Mcdonald's. They are akin to the spoiled kids that rack up unsurpassable debt on the credit card, and then just want it all to be forgiven , no matter who gets hurt. You can't shut off the US government at once in it's spending. It has to be gradual cuts, coupled with revenue increases .

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: par13del
Posted 2012-12-31 06:33:42 and read 3883 times.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 56):
But the Tea Party has members that I wouldn't trust to run a cash register at Mcdonald's.

The Senate is run by the Democrats, the executive is run by the Democrats, the House is run by the Republicans, the Tea Party is not an elected party but a fringe element within the Republican party, a fringe, all they did was to point out the size of the nations debt and the extent of government overspending, if they had not bought that to the fore would anyone today be talking about debt and government spending?
The Tea Party members are in the minority in both chambers, so how exactly would they prevent a bill from passing, if you need the fringe element to get a bill passed you really do not have a good bill.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 56):
They are akin to the spoiled kids that rack up unsurpassable debt on the credit card, and then just want it all to be forgiven , no matter who gets hurt.

I would think this label belongs to those who stare at the current deficit and debt and still claim that spending must increase.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 56):
You can't shut off the US government at once in it's spending. It has to be gradual cuts, coupled with revenue increases .

Two questions, who is saying to shut off government spending and who is talking about gradual cuts?
Based on everything I have read the Tea Party and the Republicans elected to the house want spending cuts not government shut off and no one is talking about gradual cuts, they only cuts I have seen proposed so far is in the rate of increase, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm trying not to be technical.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: casinterest
Posted 2012-12-31 07:24:33 and read 3872 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 57):
The Tea Party members are in the minority in both chambers, so how exactly would they prevent a bill from passing, if you need the fringe element to get a bill passed you really do not have a good bill.

They used their threats to bully the moderates . Look at the election cycles. The GOP has been replacing moderate members with far right whackos. The GOP has a lot of Red boxes with a people that don't really understand Government and budgets. All they understand are Guns , Abortion, and Government ===bad.

Quoting par13del (Reply 57):
I would think this label belongs to those who stare at the current deficit and debt and still claim that spending must increase.

The population does increase, and more services are needed. There is a happy medium somehwere. Unfortunately we have two parties that stand across a big divide , and anyone that approaches the middle gets beaten down.
It reminds me of the old chimpanzee- banana experiment.

Quoting par13del (Reply 57):
Two questions, who is saying to shut off government spending and who is talking about gradual cuts?
Based on everything I have read the Tea Party and the Republicans elected to the house want spending cuts not government shut off and no one is talking about gradual cuts, they only cuts I have seen proposed so far is in the rate of increase, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm trying not to be technical.

We won't know the details until we see the bill, but I doubt either side is capable of being fully rational in terms of cuts, revenue, and timeliness.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: par13del
Posted 2012-12-31 09:14:40 and read 3860 times.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 58):
We won't know the details until we see the bill, but I doubt either side is capable of being fully rational in terms of cuts, revenue, and timeliness.

Agree 100%, my betting money is on more can kicking and some convoluted structure next year that no one can fully explain but will have a balance budget in 20xx if XX = Y and T to the inverse square of Q.
All the best for the new year for one and all its going to be an interesting ride.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: tugger
Posted 2012-12-31 11:32:07 and read 3835 times.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 58):
Quoting par13del (Reply 57):
The Tea Party members are in the minority in both chambers, so how exactly would they prevent a bill from passing, if you need the fringe element to get a bill passed you really do not have a good bill.

They used their threats to bully the moderates . Look at the election cycles. The GOP has been replacing moderate members with far right whackos. The GOP has a lot of Red boxes with a people that don't really understand Government and budgets. All they understand are Guns , Abortion, and Government ===bad.

Interestingly enough it is the big monied groups that are using the relatively weak "Tea Party" candidates to do their work for them. The groups are using the "excitement and passion" that is driving the GOP base Tea Party movement and funding these candidates to displace legislators that are a bigger threat to them and tougher to control. It is much easier to control someone that is a one hit wonder (has only one goal: "Cut").

Tugg

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: StarAC17
Posted 2012-12-31 14:24:00 and read 3816 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 57):
The Senate is run by the Democrats, the executive is run by the Democrats, the House is run by the Republicans, the Tea Party is not an elected party but a fringe element within the Republican party, a fringe, all they did was to point out the size of the nations debt and the extent of government overspending, if they had not bought that to the fore would anyone today be talking about debt and government spending?

Issues with the US debt didn't start in 2009.

Where was this group with this level of organization in 2002-2003 when GWB was starting wars while cutting taxes.

Quoting par13del (Reply 57):
The Tea Party members are in the minority in both chambers, so how exactly would they prevent a bill from passing, if you need the fringe element to get a bill passed you really do not have a good bill.

Their votes are needed in the house from Boehner's caucus to pass anything so even though that is a 3rd of republicans in the house the need some to come to the table.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 58):
The GOP has been replacing moderate members with far right whackos.

  
This threat is very real for a lot of sensible republicans if they do vote for a deal which will include tax hikes then Grover Norquist (or someone like him) will put a challenger in their seat in 2014 and that may turn that seat blue if its a kook like Todd Akin.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: par13del
Posted 2012-12-31 14:37:38 and read 3809 times.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 61):
Issues with the US debt didn't start in 2009.

Where was this group with this level of organization in 2002-2003 when GWB was starting wars while cutting taxes.

Exactly, why is the Tea Party, federal deficit and massive government spending such an issue today, where was Moody during the 2003-2003 GWB era, why did they think to downgrade the USA this summer after they did not pass a bill to cut federal spending and the deficit, and why are they not pushing for the fiscal cliff which will accomplish exactly what they were pushing during the summer, they did want cuts in spending and tax increases during the summer right?
You really think this is all about the Tea Party???? Others are included in Tuggers groups mentioned below. I'm looking to see if Moody is going to restore the USA rating the day after the fiscal cliff kicks in, I'm not holding my breath.

Quoting tugger (Reply 60):
Interestingly enough it is the big monied groups that are using the relatively weak "Tea Party" candidates to do their work for them.
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 61):
Their votes are needed in the house from Boehner's caucus to pass anything

If the republicans in the house go along with the democrats plans / bill they will have enough votes to pass any bill without the Tea Party elements.
The reality is that both parties in the last couple elections have been electing representatives who finally believe that something has to be done about the deficit.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: tugger
Posted 2012-12-31 14:50:37 and read 3804 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 62):
If the republicans in the house go along with the democrats plans / bill they will have enough votes to pass any bill without the Tea Party elements.

I understand that, that is not the issue that "monied' groups care about. The idea is to get people they support elected and to weaken their legislative ability to do something and work together.

Tugg

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: StarAC17
Posted 2012-12-31 14:53:34 and read 3808 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 62):
If the republicans in the house go along with the democrats plans / bill they will have enough votes to pass any bill without the Tea Party elements.

It will but as I said in my last reply and Casinterest mentioned, these republican's seats will be challenged by more extreme candidates in 2014 in their primaries so they may not get the chance to face all voters who may commend them in 2014.

Also Boehner may lose his speaker-ship because of trying to do right by the American people.

Quoting par13del (Reply 62):
You really think this is all about the Tea Party???? Others are included in Tuggers groups mentioned below. I'm looking to see if Moody is going to restore the USA rating the day after the fiscal cliff kicks in, I'm not holding my breath.

IIRC Moody's and S & P downgraded the US rating not for any structural reasons as I recall. They saw the fact that the government was unwilling to take a balanced approach to managing their debt as risk and made the downgrade.

Quoting par13del (Reply 62):
Exactly, why is the Tea Party, federal deficit and massive government spending such an issue today,

I expect to be flamed for it by some but it may have something to do with the guy in the white house.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: par13del
Posted 2012-12-31 15:17:06 and read 3801 times.

Quoting tugger (Reply 63):
The idea is to get people they support elected and to weaken their legislative ability to do something and work together.

Do you think they are just out to sabotage or they have some other hidden agenda? I have always thought of them as pushing their agenda to ensure that their pet projects are funded or untouched.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: Ken777
Posted 2012-12-31 18:32:21 and read 3765 times.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 46):
But if you buy IBM stock with money which you already have paid taxes on, and IBM makes money which, after corporate income tax can be added to the equity value of your stock, why should you have to pay tax on precisely the net gain that IBM paid income tax on?

If you buy shares you are paying for those shares with post tax funds. So you buy $100,000 worth with funds that have been taxed and sell those shares for $130,000 - you get your $100K back and only pay taxes on the $30K profits. That $30K is income and I believe it should be taxed as any earned income. Why should other taxpayers subsidize the guy pulling in that $30K with a lower tax rate? Especially when we apparently can no longer stand by our obligations on Social Security?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 46):
If an investor wants a return of no less than 30% over 5 years, after tax, that threshold is much harder to attain with higher taxes, and thus fewer opportunities (especially the marginal ones) will be funded.

Let's face it, you still have people invested in Dell and Microsoft.

Is Dell delivering 30% over 5 years?         

If you want to make any pretense to ensure we have a reasonably healthy middle class you need to stop bowing down to billionaires and tax interest and capital gains as income. Simple formula: Income = Income.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 51):
Unemployment benefits for 2 years (and Obama wants more)???

It's called a Great Recession and those problems from your Conservative Heroes will last a generation.

Live with it - the Bush/Cheney team phucked up at a monumental level and we will be paying for a generation.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 51):
Farm subsidies. Stop it.

So double the price of milk, etc. Good for inflation, but not the brightest move to make.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 52):
But look at the few currencies of well-run countries

And start by looking at how they handle health care. Are they running a grossly overpriced system like we are? Screwing up budgets and P&Ls of companies around the country? Big Duh Factor there.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: seb146
Posted 2012-12-31 20:20:05 and read 3748 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 57):
I would think this label belongs to those who stare at the current deficit and debt and still claim that spending must increase.

The same people who claim that cutting income does wonders for reducing deficits.

What I don't understand is people who claim to love and understand the Constitution but blame Obama for not having a budget. All spending originates in the House. If the right-wing can not even muster enough votes to move any kind of budget to the Senate, how is that Obama's fault?

Also, how is cutting income going to reduce the deficit? I am still waiting lo these many years to have that explained to me. We have, according to the right-wing fringe, had the deficit go up over the past few years of having income (taxes) the lowest ever. But, they still claim that low, low taxes will fix everything.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: tugger
Posted 2012-12-31 21:28:42 and read 3736 times.

A deal is supposedly within reach:

Quote:
White House and Senate Republican negotiators have reached a tentative deal on the fiscal crisis, sources told Fox News -- but Vice President Biden made a late-night visit to Capitol Hill to try to get rank-and-file Senate Democrats on board.

A senior official told Fox News that President Obama has gotten the sign-off from Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. But the official said they are “not spiking the ball” yet.

Both chambers of Congress still must pass whatever is introduced, and negotiators could face some heavy lifting in selling the plan to skeptical House conservatives as well as liberal Democratic senators.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...all-drop-set-to-ring-in-tax-hikes/

And of course everybody is trying to find out what the deal is, here is a synopsis of what CNN is reporting:
Sequester postponed two months
Half paid for through tax revenue and half paid for through spending cuts
Of the spending cuts half is defense spending, half non-defense spending

Estate tax exemption level for individual stays at $5 million
Cap is indexed to inflation

“Doc Fix” payments to continue for doctors who take Medicare patients
Not paid by the Affordable Care Act

A one year extension of unemployment benefits

Income taxes for individuals making $400,000 a year and households making $450,000 return to 39.6%.

Extension of tax credits for child care and tuition.

Itemized deductions at $250,000 for individuals, $300,000 for households
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...-fiscal-cliff-agreement/?hpt=hp_t1

Tugg

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: seb146
Posted 2012-12-31 21:49:49 and read 3730 times.

Quoting tugger (Reply 68):
Half paid for through tax revenue and half paid for through spending cuts
Of the spending cuts half is defense spending, half non-defense spending

And, of course, when the deficit plummits, Obama will still be branded as "worst president ever" by conservative loud mouths.

Quoting tugger (Reply 68):
Income taxes for individuals making $400,000 a year and households making $450,000 return to 39.6%.

Is that overall or just every dollar over that amount? I know you don't have the figures, but the media loves to jump to "everyone earning over $XXX,XXX" when, in reality, it is every dollar over that amount is taxed at the higher rate.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2012-12-31 22:15:18 and read 3734 times.

Quoting tugger (Reply 68):
A deal is supposedly within reach:

According to USAToday, Boehner is denying a deal is reached. Can't link a source since I'm on my iPad, sorry.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: tugger
Posted 2012-12-31 22:21:03 and read 3728 times.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 70):
According to USAToday, Boehner is denying a deal is reached.

Well it certainly hasn't been reached yet, but hopefully, perhaps, it is within reach.

And if it isn't reached at least we can see elements of something that potentially looks somewhat reasonable. But still only a start.

Tugg

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: tugger
Posted 2012-12-31 22:25:08 and read 3727 times.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 69):
Is that overall or just every dollar over that amount? I know you don't have the figures, but the media loves to jump to "everyone earning over $XXX,XXX" when, in reality, it is every dollar over that amount is taxed at the higher rate.

Has nothing to do with "the media", the way taxes work is that each stage is incremental and goes into effect at each level. So yes, everyone, even "the wealthy" pay each stage of taxes for each portion of their income.

Tugg

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2013-01-01 22:57:39 and read 3640 times.

So a deal is reached.

The problem is that there are three more impending deadlines. I predict brinksmanship on all three.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-01-02 03:29:29 and read 3608 times.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 67):
What I don't understand is people who claim to love and understand the Constitution but blame Obama for not having a budget. All spending originates in the House. If the right-wing can not even muster enough votes to move any kind of budget to the Senate, how is that Obama's fault?

The House under the Republicans have passed budgets each of the last few years, the Senate under the Democrats has not. The House obligation is to their constituents not to the Senate, there is a conference built in to the process to work out the differences between the two versions, no one seems to hold the Senate to the fire for failing in the budget process, hence my shock that this one was left to the senate and they actually did something.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 67):
Also, how is cutting income going to reduce the deficit?

The idea is to cut government spending which is creating the largest portion of the deficit, soending has been outstripping government revenues by a wide margin in the last few decades, yes that includes prior to the two wars, during the two wars and based on what is taking place will continue after the wars are over.

Where I am lost is why the two month delay, if the congress which is basically made up of the same members could not reach a deal over six months what exactly is a two month delay going to accomplish?

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: flipdewaf
Posted 2013-01-02 03:51:35 and read 3606 times.

Do you get to see the debating live on TV? See what they are discussing and what things they are taking into account or is it all behind closed doors?

Fred

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: Ken777
Posted 2013-01-02 09:56:04 and read 3561 times.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 69):
And, of course, when the deficit plummits, Obama will still be branded as "worst president ever" by conservative loud mouths.

Conservatives have felt that way about him before be actually took office. Especially in the southern states.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 75):

Do you get to see the debating live on TV? See what they are discussing and what things they are taking into account or is it all behind closed doors?

Of course not. Politicians can say what ever they want in public, but private negotiations will remain private. Without them we would go over the cliff big time.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: Dreadnought
Posted 2013-01-02 10:08:15 and read 3552 times.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 76):
Quoting seb146 (Reply 69):
And, of course, when the deficit plummits, Obama will still be branded as "worst president ever" by conservative loud mouths.

Conservatives have felt that way about him before be actually took office. Especially in the southern states.

Seriously? Do you really expect the deficit to go down in any significant way if we did what Obama wanted?

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: flipdewaf
Posted 2013-01-02 10:21:14 and read 3548 times.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 76):
Of course not. Politicians can say what ever they want in public, but private negotiations will remain private. Without them we would go over the cliff big time.

seems a bit silly that you can't get access to the elected officials and see how they are actually running your country. it seems to me that it would be much easier to see who is blocking who doing what AS opposed to just media friendly mud slinging in front of the cameras, this would make all involved grow up.

Fred

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: casinterest
Posted 2013-01-02 12:54:23 and read 3527 times.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 77):
Seriously? Do you really expect the deficit to go down in any significant way if we did what Obama wanted?

I expect an economic recovery to take care of quite a bit of the defecit, coupled with the higher taxes to hopefully start paying down the defecit. Hopefully some viable cuts in spending will come out of the coming debt cieling, but I am not holding my breath. It seems pretty clear that the House GOP is in complete disarray and the Sentate GOP got stabbed in the back by the house.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: Dreadnought
Posted 2013-01-02 13:15:11 and read 3524 times.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 79):
I expect an economic recovery to take care of quite a bit of the defecit,

A) Please look at the historical tables (google them) and tell me how much an increase in revenue can be expected from a typical economic recovery. Hint: It is nowhere near what is needed.

B) Most people are expecting a recession in 2013, not a recovery.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 79):
coupled with the higher taxes to hopefully start paying down the defecit

and C), the tax increases are expected to only raise about $80 billion per year.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 79):
Hopefully some viable cuts in spending will come out of the coming debt cieling, but I am not holding my breath.

And tell me, who was it - the Democrats or the Republicans, who steadfastly refused to even allow to be considered any spending cuts whatsoever in the Fiscal Cliff discussions?

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2013-01-02 13:18:59 and read 3521 times.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 79):
I expect an economic recovery to take care of quite a bit of the defecit

How? I realize that a better economy produces more revenue, but I don't think we can come close to closing the deficit. Of course, you mention spending cuts, but I think it's going to take much more spending cuts than raising revenue to get us out of this mess

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: Ken777
Posted 2013-01-02 13:41:27 and read 3512 times.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 77):
Seriously? Do you really expect the deficit to go down in any significant way if we did what Obama wanted?

I don't expect the deficit to go down simply because we will not see the GOP work with Democrats. That would take accepting tax increases (probably back to the Clinton years) as well as facing so serious cutting in spending - including spending that is a "loophole" in nature. Those now unaffordable tax breaks need to be on the table as well as the GOP Favorites.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 78):
seems a bit silly that you can't get access to the elected officials and see how they are actually running your country.

You can to a very large degree, but no federal government will be totally open. Some negotiations need to be held in private in order for some agreement to be reached, especially after too many public comments have been made.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: casinterest
Posted 2013-01-02 13:48:59 and read 3508 times.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 80):
A) Please look at the historical tables (google them) and tell me how much an increase in revenue can be expected from a typical economic recovery. Hint: It is nowhere near what is needed.

B) Most people are expecting a recession in 2013, not a recovery.

Typical of what? This was a huge recession , with huge unemployment costs not comparable with other recessions. The ones expecting a Recession are the folks that thought we would go over the cliff without an agreement. The Recession would be attributable ot that, and that alone. Although it looks like the GOP is still going to try for it with the upcoming debt cieling fight.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 80):
and C), the tax increases are expected to only raise about $80 billion per year.

FICA tax alone is going to bring in about 120 billion extra. Plus as the economy continues toimprove and more people go back to work, there is more revenue. If we go with your assumption, how the hell did we lose 400 billion in Revenue when no taxes were cut in 2008?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 80):
And tell me, who was it - the Democrats or the Republicans, who steadfastly refused to even allow to be considered any spending cuts whatsoever in the Fiscal Cliff discussions?

Spending cuts should occur, just slowly over time, and not while the economy is in a fragile place being jeopordized by a bunch of TP whackos that i wouldn't trust to manage McDonalds.


Which party couldn't even bring a vote on Plan B? , and wanted to go over the cliff protecting 2% of the population from tax increases?

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: FlyPNS1
Posted 2013-01-02 14:03:53 and read 3505 times.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 80):
A) Please look at the historical tables (google them) and tell me how much an increase in revenue can be expected from a typical economic recovery. Hint: It is nowhere near what is needed.

If we could get tax revenues to be about 18.5% of GDP (close to historic average) and have GDP rise by about 2.5% for the next 3-4 years (decent growth, but nothing spectacular), government revenues would be close to 3 Trillion dollars. If we held spending steady at current rates, this would cut the deficit almost in half.

Now, we obviously would still need cuts.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 80):
B) Most people are expecting a recession in 2013, not a recovery.

If we slash government spending and lay off millions of people as you desire, a recession is guaranteed.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 80):
the Democrats or the Republicans, who steadfastly refused to even allow to be considered any spending cuts whatsoever in the Fiscal Cliff discussions?

The answer is neither. Democrats were open to cuts, IF they were paired with some tax increases so that the wealthy also carry the burden for fixing the budget. The Republicans want only the middle/lower income to bear the burden, while the wealthy make no sacrifice.

In fact, many Democrats were willing to the let the sequestration cuts happen, but Republicans demanded they be delayed because they were afraid of cuts to the sacred cow of defense. Hence, why we got the deal we got.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: Dreadnought
Posted 2013-01-02 14:32:59 and read 3503 times.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 82):
I don't expect the deficit to go down simply because we will not see the GOP work with Democrats.

Ah, so you are already blaming everything on the GOP. Just like an obedient obamaphile...

Quoting casinterest (Reply 83):
Typical of what? This was a huge recession , with huge unemployment costs not comparable with other recessions.

Recessions, and depressions, are all followed by a recovery. As a general rule, the deeper the recession, the stronger the recovery, except when government pursues anti-growth policies, which slows everything down and stiffles the recovery. With the right policies in place, there is no reason why we should not have 5-8% growth right now, except for the fact that right now, nobody wants to take a lot of risk with this administration in charge.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 83):
The ones expecting a Recession are the folks that thought we would go over the cliff without an agreement.

Irrelevant. The recession will come with or without an agreement. IMHO, the recession will be short but sharp without any agreement and with all the sequester cuts put into effect, but recovery after that (2015 onwards) would be pretty strong and likely sustainable - average growth of maybe 4-5% (I think we have a lot of pent-up potential). With the current agreement, and presuming that sequester is avoided and the Dems resisting any meaningful cuts, I expect a mild recession, but with an equally mild recovery similar to what we have had over the past couple of years - the type of recovery where people look at each other and say "what recovery?". And I would expect average growth over the next 10 years of maybe 1%. And since population grows faster than that, that means I expect a decline in real GDP per capita, and falling standard of living. That's Obamanomics.

Oh, and that is the optimist view. If we have a truly failed treasury auction in the next couple of years (which I expect), it will be worse.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 83):
FICA tax alone is going to bring in about 120 billion extra.

That's off-budget.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 83):
Spending cuts should occur, just slowly over time, and not while the economy is in a fragile place

It will ALWAYS be in a fragile state! The economy is addicted to the extra money like a heroin addict is addicted to smack. We have to start drawing it down. I am OK with gradual, but I need to believe you are serious about wanting to get off the drugs, and right now, I am convinced that Obama and the Democrats have absolutely zero intention of quitting the habit. Philosophically it is not what they would want, and politically they are very adept at blaming the Republicans for everything, as Ken's post illustrates.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 84):
If we could get tax revenues to be about 18.5% of GDP (close to historic average)

I agree, that should be the target. But spending needs to come down to around 20% as well.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 84):
If we slash government spending and lay off millions of people as you desire, a recession is guaranteed.

A recession is coming in the next year or so, like it or not.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 84):
Democrats were open to cuts,

BS. They were only open to cuts if they were paid for by tax increases over and above the tax increases that were programmed in for 1/1/13. For the avoidance of the fiscal cliff, Obama offered ZERO cuts.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: Ken777
Posted 2013-01-02 15:21:10 and read 3485 times.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 85):
Ah, so you are already blaming everything on the GOP.



I've been blaming the GOP ever since an unnecessary invasion (and resulting 10 year war) when there were no bloody WMDs. Actually it is more a Conservative problem than a GOP problem.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 85):
Just like an obedient obamaphile...

Actually just like an independent type of voter who voted for Bush II in 2000 and hasn't voted for a Republican after that first term of SNAFUs and FUBARs.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 85):
Recessions, and depressions, are all followed by a recovery.

I believe that we have moved so far to a "Haves & Haves Not" country that a traditional recovery is not going to happen. The Wealthy have obviously done exceptionally well, even in the Great Recession. The middle class has been going down for too long. Far too many moving from a decent job to a minimum wage job, too many unable to afford an advanced education, too much splitting the country.

I believe you will be "recovering" from the total Bush/Cheney Phuck Up for a couple of generations.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 85):
With the right policies in place, there is no reason why we should not have 5-8% growth right now

What right policies? The ones from the last GOP Administration? Those policies and screw up brought us the Great Recession.

Don't look for 5-8% growth until you address issues like building up the middle class (which isn't going to happen with our pathetic minimum wage), join the rest of the civilized countries with an intelligent medical system, and until we start increasing education spending, not cutting it. (And I don't mean more money for education in order to put more police in the schools.)

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-01-02 15:33:58 and read 3482 times.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 80):
And tell me, who was it - the Democrats or the Republicans, who steadfastly refused to even allow to be considered any spending cuts whatsoever in the Fiscal Cliff discussions?

I know I know, the Republicans and their Tea Party fanatics who refused to allow tax increases on the rich.
I really could not resist, one hand is never good at clapping  
Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 84):
If we could get tax revenues to be about 18.5% of GDP (close to historic average) and have GDP rise by about 2.5% for the next 3-4 years (decent growth, but nothing spectacular), government revenues would be close to 3 Trillion dollars. If we held spending steady at current rates, this would cut the deficit almost in half.

Everything thing that the spending advocates proclaim is that since the population is growing government services must also grow, no one accounts for government waste, even POTUS made only a token mention of the issue when leaving for his vacation. No one is truly disputing the fact that taxing the rich 100% and cutting defense spending will not wipe out the deficit or make any significant dent in the debt, the holy grail seems to be that the economic recovery will take care of the rest. Problem with that theory is that when things are good, no one pays attention to debt.

The other issue is if government revenue does get close to 3 Trillion dollars, who exactly will allow and or vote for using any part of that money to pay off debt, how about passing an agreement that 20% of any supplus must be used to pay down debt, pass in whose lifetime.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: Dreadnought
Posted 2013-01-02 15:35:48 and read 3483 times.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 86):
I've been blaming the GOP ever since an unnecessary invasion (and resulting 10 year war) when there were no bloody WMDs. Actually it is more a Conservative problem than a GOP problem.

You mean neo-conservative, don't you? Two very different things.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 86):
I believe you will be "recovering" from the total Bush/Cheney Phuck Up for a couple of generations.

And which policies of theirs are you talking about?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 86):
What right policies? The ones from the last GOP Administration? Those policies and screw up brought us the Great Recession.

You mean the policies (and laws) surrounding the mortgage industry which Bush desperately tried to warn everyone about in 2003-6 and was shouted down for being a racist by Democrats?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 86):
Don't look for 5-8% growth until you address issues like building up the middle class (which isn't going to happen with our pathetic minimum wage)

Have you noticed that most of the advanced countries (at least all the ones I can think of) who have a relatively low disparity between rich and poor, do not have minimum wage laws or a whole lot of income support programs? They pretty much let the market decide. If nobody decides they can live on $8 per hour (because there are no food stamps etc etc), then Kroger will be forced to increase wages in order to attract employees.

It appears to be an ironic but actual reality that the more you try to enforce "equality" via the law, the less equal people become.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2013-01-02 15:37:22 and read 3480 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 87):
I know I know, the Republicans and their Tea Party fanatics who refused to allow tax increases on the rich.

To be fair, I was extremely unpleased with the cuts, or should I say, lack of cuts laid on the table by the Democrats...

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: Ken777
Posted 2013-01-02 16:16:35 and read 3472 times.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 88):
And which policies of theirs are you talking about?

Let's start with the "refund of the surplus to the taxpayer" continuing when the surplus disappears.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 88):
Have you noticed that most of the advanced countries (at least all the ones I can think of) who have a relatively low disparity between rich and poor, do not have minimum wage laws or a whole lot of income support programs? They pretty much let the market decide.

Since my actual experience (8 years) is in Australia I'll use that. They do have minimum wages - including set wages for real apprenticeship programs. Real programs, like QANTAS was delivering - not hamburger flipping. And a rational medical system as good as any in the world that keeps the burden of nanny care costs off the back of the employer.

So when you look around maybe you need to also look at how successful other countries are when it comes to standards of living, health care outcomes, etc.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-01-02 16:19:08 and read 3472 times.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 86):
join the rest of the civilized countries with an intelligent medical system, and until we start increasing education spending, not cutting it.

I believe that you need to put education on the same level as the medical system, a more intelligent system.
The USA spends more money than most other countries and gets much less in results, you really need to wonder where all that money is going and who are the beneficiaries, while that is being done how exactly do you correct it?
One consistent item which does seem to work is when their is less money to go around suddenly one can see more clearly where the funds are being spent and how, at the state level it is much easier to follow the money.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: StarAC17
Posted 2013-01-02 16:26:07 and read 3467 times.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 86):
Don't look for 5-8% growth until you address issues like building up the middle class (which isn't going to happen with our pathetic minimum wage), join the rest of the civilized countries with an intelligent medical system, and until we start increasing education spending, not cutting it. (And I don't mean more money for education in order to put more police in the schools.)

  

The reasons that countries like China, India and Brazil (the emerging economies) have growth levels like that now which are sluggish to what they have been is because they are building a middle class. The US middle class has at the best stagnated.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 86):
I've been blaming the GOP ever since an unnecessary invasion (and resulting 10 year war) when there were no bloody WMDs. Actually it is more a Conservative problem than a GOP problem.
Quoting par13del (Reply 87):
The other issue is if government revenue does get close to 3 Trillion dollars, who exactly will allow and or vote for using any part of that money to pay off debt, how about passing an agreement that 20% of any supplus must be used to pay down debt, pass in whose lifetime.

That makes so much sense congress will never go for it  .

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 86):
I've been blaming the GOP ever since an unnecessary invasion (and resulting 10 year war) when there were no bloody WMDs. Actually it is more a Conservative problem than a GOP problem.

Also starting those wars while cutting taxes.

Saying that Blame democrats too!! They were so scared of GWB to stand up to him on starting two wars with very unpopular (as of today) policies after 9/11. Had the democrats stood up to him in 2003 they could have cleaned house in 2004 given the result of Iraq at that time. But when you had big name democrats voting for the war they have no case to make against the outcome it then.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: Dreadnought
Posted 2013-01-02 16:33:33 and read 3469 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 91):
The USA spends more money than most other countries and gets much less in results, you really need to wonder where all that money is going and who are the beneficiaries, while that is being done how exactly do you correct it?

There was an article in the WSJ recently showing how headcount is exploding at public universities in the administration field - far faster than the increase in teachers. To the point of universities having 1 staff member for every 3.5 students. When I was in college we had class sizes from 15 to 600, and from what I have heard that has not changed much. What are all those admins doing?

It is also an economic fact that, much like the easing of availability of mortgages caused the housing market to bubble (i.e. caused the price of house to increase dramatically), the same dynamic is happening with university education. The reason that university tuition has increased at something like 10% per year on average is because the government has poured in over a trillion dollars in student loans into the industry. Prices increased because the money was there to absorb it.

Same with government funding of healthcare. Do you really think that, if there was no medicare/medicaid, and insurances all were catastrophic coverage only, that doctors would charge you $150-$200 for a 10 minute consultation for a cold?

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: FlyPNS1
Posted 2013-01-02 16:52:00 and read 3462 times.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 85):
I agree, that should be the target.

Then you're going to have to raise taxes, because you won't get to 18.5 under the Bush tax rates.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 85):
But spending needs to come down to around 20% as well.

I agree, but you'll have a hard time doing that if defense related spending is off the table for any cuts as Republicans propose. The other problem is that your 20% target wouldn't even come close to balancing the current budget. Even if we magically got to 20% tomorrow, we'd still be running a 500-600 Billion dollar deficit...not even factoring in the revenue lost when the cuts to get us to 20% cost more jobs.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 88):
Have you noticed that most of the advanced countries (at least all the ones I can think of) who have a relatively low disparity between rich and poor, do not have minimum wage laws or a whole lot of income support programs?

Many countries do...including Canada, Australia, United Kingdom and France. Even among those that have no national standard, virtually all blue collar and low skill jobs are covered by collective bargaining agreements that mandate a minimum wage. Either way, no one in the Western world is leaving their minimum wages to the free market.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 88):
If nobody decides they can live on $8 per hour (because there are no food stamps etc etc), then Kroger will be forced to increase wages in order to attract employees.

Or wages and working conditions just spiral downward because people are so desperate that'll work for almost nothing....leading to the horror show the U.S. experienced in the at 19th and early 20th century. And what we still see today in many 3rd world countries.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: Dreadnought
Posted 2013-01-02 17:08:31 and read 3456 times.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 94):
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 85):
I agree, that should be the target.

Then you're going to have to raise taxes, because you won't get to 18.5 under the Bush tax rates.

And I have consistently, in this forum, called for a return to the Clinton rates. For everyone. I would also support a national VAT.

But there is no way in hell you are going to balance the budget simply on the backs of the rich. I have talked to so many low-information voters, who think that if we can just raise taxes on the rich we will be OK, it makes me sick.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 94):
I agree, but you'll have a hard time doing that if defense related spending is off the table for any cuts as Republicans propose.

It is not defense spending that is exploding (although it has grown more than it should and should be cut). It is entitlements that is going out of control.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 94):
Many countries do...including Canada, Australia, United Kingdom and France. Even among those that have no national standard, virtually all blue collar and low skill jobs are covered by collective bargaining agreements that mandate a minimum wage. Either way, no one in the Western world is leaving their minimum wages to the free market.

I was thinking more on the lines of Singapore and Switzerland, Austria, Denmark. Unions have little to do with it - most people aren't union members.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: n318ea
Posted 2013-01-02 23:28:59 and read 3423 times.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 95):
And I have consistently, in this forum, called for a return to the Clinton rates. For everyone. I would also support a national VAT.

A return to Clinton SPENDING rates would be another Dream Act. Everyone is going to have to share some pain to fix this. But that's why we will fail......they won't.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: casinterest
Posted 2013-01-03 06:47:02 and read 3382 times.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 85):
Recessions, and depressions, are all followed by a recovery. As a general rule, the deeper the recession, the stronger the recovery, except when government pursues anti-growth policies, which slows everything down and stiffles the recovery

But it hasn't been anti -growth policies that have held it down. The biggest problem has been the lasting effect of the housing crisis. Too many families went cash negative on their assets to be able to spend. The last 4-5 years has been one prolonged crisis that has been enhanced by Europe's crisis. The US is starting to recover, but much of that recovery is still tempered by folks that are in Bankruptcy. The recovery is coming from the younger crowd that never owned homes, and from older folks that are downsizing to regain equity. The current economy is poised to take off, but these Healthcare, debt ceiling and budget fight tangos that the congress is doing, is only prolonging the pain and agony. We need a solid agreeable plan, not can kicking every 6 months, with panic when these artificial deadlines aren't met.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 85):
Irrelevant. The recession will come with or without an agreement

I don't think so. Spending is going up sharply, and homes are being built everywheere. I think growth may slow, but I don't think growth will go negative. Especially if Congress can raise the debt cieling, and agree to a few spending cuts by March 1st.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 85):
That's Obamanomics.

No, that is right wing fake news paranoia.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 85):
That's off-budget.

No it is very much on budget now.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 85):
I am convinced that Obama and the Democrats have absolutely zero intention of quitting the habit. Philosophically it is not what they would want, and politically they are very adept at blaming the Republicans for everything, as Ken's post illustrates.

The problem with the GOP right now, is that they aren't serious about spending cuts on defense , which is the biggest problem. Defense needs to get cut. The Democrats need to get serious about getting Social Security and Medicare on Budget. These are the three biggies, and they need to be handled . And they need to be handled in a serious manner. Not stonewalling agreements to the last day, only to find out the house gop can't even agree on a plan.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-01-03 09:24:31 and read 3368 times.

Seems the mood is downright nasty these days:

John Boehner Told Harry Reid 'Go F--- Yourself' Outside the Oval Office

Quote:

As they arrived for a much-hyped meeting with the President last Friday afternoon, Speaker of the House John Boehner spotted House Majority Leader Harry Reid approaching just steps from the Oval Office. According to "multiple sources," Boehner pointed his finger at Reid and without any other fanfare said, "Go f*** yourself." When Reid asked him what he was talking about, Boehner simply repeated his curse and moved on.

To be fair to Boehner, just hours earlier Reid had called him a dictator on the floor of the Senate, telling the whole country in a widely-televised speech that the Speaker cared more about protecting his job than doing what was right for the American people.

Well, at least both men know where they stand! 

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-01-03 10:41:18 and read 3359 times.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 97):
Especially if Congress can raise the debt cieling, and agree to a few spending cuts by March 1st.

The debt ceiling will be raised because the entire nation will be on the Tea Party lunatics to enough already about debt and deficit.
As for the spending cuts, we first have to agree to cut the rate of increase in spending, until that is done it makes no sense to talk about spending cuts.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 97):
The problem with the GOP right now, is that they aren't serious about spending cuts on defense , which is the biggest problem. Defense needs to get cut. The Democrats need to get serious about getting Social Security and Medicare on Budget.

If defense spending had the percentage of GDP that the entitlement programs have it would have been cut millenia ago, defense spending is another can that can be thrown onto the field because it is a pet project of the Republicans, if the defense budget was killed immediately the deficit would remain and recession would kick in real quick, the bulk of USA defense spending is done on home soil employing Americans.
Now if the Tea Party and their Republican friends had any sense, they would commence the cutting of defense spending by looking at closing bases in Europe, Korea, Japan and bases within the USA whose functions can be consolidated at other bases. Such a strategy would serve two purposes, one it would allow them to continue to funnel money to their pet OEM's major projects like the LCS, F35, Star Wars etc, the second benefit is it would get the Democrats onboard, just because they want to cut defense spending does not mean that they want to close bases which benefit the larger civilian community.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: Dreadnought
Posted 2013-01-03 11:09:55 and read 3348 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 99):
The debt ceiling will be raised because the entire nation will be on the Tea Party lunatics to enough already about debt and deficit.

What are you saying, that the American people simply don't want to hear about debts and deficits anymore?

From the last election results, I would guess that is probably correct. People just don't want to hear about how much trouble we are actually in. Which will make it that much more painful when reality inevitably bites them in the ass.

Quoting par13del (Reply 99):
As for the spending cuts, we first have to agree to cut the rate of increase in spending, until that is done it makes no sense to talk about spending cuts.

Not when it is used as a red herring, trying to tell us that a decrease in the rate of increase is the same as a spending cut.

Quoting par13del (Reply 99):
If defense spending had the percentage of GDP that the entitlement programs have it would have been cut millenia ago, defense spending is another can that can be thrown onto the field because it is a pet project of the Republicans, if the defense budget was killed immediately the deficit would remain and recession would kick in real quick, the bulk of USA defense spending is done on home soil employing Americans.

Right now we are spending around $700 billion on defense. I have no issue cutting that by $100-150 billion. Yes, that will cause some contraction in the economy, but we can only afford what we can afford.

But I want to see a similarly proportioned cut in entitlements spending as well as administrative cuts.

Quoting par13del (Reply 99):
Now if the Tea Party and their Republican friends had any sense, they would commence the cutting of defense spending by looking at closing bases in Europe, Korea, Japan and bases within the USA whose functions can be consolidated at other bases.

You'll get no argument from the TP (of which I am a member). It's the NeoConservatives who would raise an issue with it. And thanks to the media vilifying the TP over the past couple of years, the GOP is now firmly back in the hands of the NeoCons. Thanks a lot.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: Ken777
Posted 2013-01-03 15:42:21 and read 3321 times.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 93):
much like the easing of availability of mortgages caused the housing market to bubble

The problem with the housing bubble we had wasn't easing the availability of money - it was the crooks who played the system. We had a huge surge in housing after WW II and it wasn't a game played by crooks. My wife and I bought our first house on the GI Bill (as a Vietnam Vet) and we didn't have a bubble then - but we did have a mortgage company who actually worked hard to do their job properly.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 95):
For everyone. I would also support a national VAT.

My preference is a GST as it taxes services at the same rate as goods. Lawyers, accountants, etc. included in the program allows the percentage to be lower.

Just don't expect the income tax rates to be lower.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 95):
I have talked to so many low-information voters, who think that if we can just raise taxes on the rich we will be OK, it makes me sick.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 95):
It is entitlements that is going out of control.

The tax free ride of employer nanny care is an entitlement.

The tax free ride on personal retirement plans is an entitlement.

It's difficult to get control of entitlements for the elderly & poor without first addressing those entitlements.

You aren't going to see the GOP talking about those entitlements, are you?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 95):
I was thinking more on the lines of Singapore and Switzerland, Austria, Denmark. Unions have little to do with it - most people aren't union members.

Take another look and work out the costs of their health care system, look at the minimum wages they require. Also take a look at their gun laws and the related crime rate.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: Dreadnought
Posted 2013-01-03 16:14:20 and read 3311 times.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 101):
The problem with the housing bubble we had wasn't easing the availability of money - it was the crooks who played the system.

It was the massive availability of money.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w18609

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 101):
My wife and I bought our first house on the GI Bill (as a Vietnam Vet) and we didn't have a bubble then

Nowhere near the same magnitude

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 101):
The tax free ride of employer nanny care is an entitlement.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 101):
The tax free ride on personal retirement plans is an entitlement.

You know, you keep going on and on about this, and you make no sense. An entitlement is when the government sends you (or maybe your doctor) a check for stuff you enjoy. Nothing else. What you are talking about are tax deductions. Call them that. I will gladly discuss with you the validity of those deductions, but as long as you call them something that is incorrect, it makes it hard to discuss. It's like if I insist on calling all retirees giraffes. It makes no sense.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 101):
Take another look and work out the costs of their health care system, look at the minimum wages they require. Also take a look at their gun laws and the related crime rate.

In the case of Switzerland, 100% of the cost of health insurance is borne by the individual, government pays nothing, just about every home has a fully automatic assault rifle in it, and there is no minimum wage. What's your point?

[Edited 2013-01-03 16:17:06]

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-01-03 16:37:03 and read 3300 times.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 100):
What are you saying, that the American people simply don't want to hear about debts and deficits anymore?

Yes, that is my belief, and when the ability exist to villify the messenger the message get's lost, as per your comment below.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 100):
And thanks to the media vilifying the TP over the past couple of years, the GOP is now firmly back in the hands of the NeoCons.

  

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 101):
My preference is a GST as it taxes services at the same rate as goods. Lawyers, accountants, etc. included in the program allows the percentage to be lower.

Just don't expect the income tax rates to be lower.

Am I right in assuming that you do not believe that the Federal government is inefficient and waste a lot of money and resources? To be clear, I am not an extremist, I'm not saying that the entire Federal government is a failure, just that we have seen time and time again where the waste money, it is shown to the public and no prevention put in place, as this is airline web site, all we need to look at is the billions spent attempting and trying tp upgrade the ATC system.
When it is done it will be time to start over again as the technology will be obsolete based on how long it has taken.

If a GST is put in place I think it is reasonable to have some lowering of taxes, the USA has been running deficit spending for a long long time, the debt has been on a continual increase even when budgets were being passed, savings gained from the end of the cold war, and surplus during the Clinton era, lowering the debt was never seriously considered.
I may be wrong but I do not believe that if the government is given more money they will now spend within their means and commence paying off the debt.

Stock markets have soared and now we have Moody's who were strangely silent during the run up to the cliff now sounding like a Tea Party supporter talking about the government doing something about debt, go figure. 

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-01-06 04:24:58 and read 3224 times.

Something from the other side of the pond I read this morning.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...ays-Chancellor-George-Osborne.html

Bit of a long read, but why I posted it is that the story has me wondering why child benefits were being given to everyone in the first place. A decision was made to give it and in some respects, it may now seem that those who economically do not need the benefit were somehow wrong for accepting it?

If any type of welfare is not means tested, can any nation survive and thrive economically, only in utopia will everyone limit themselves for the betterment of the nation.
As the sayings goes, Rome was not built in a day, or it only takes one rotten apple to spoil the barrel.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: Ken777
Posted 2013-01-06 16:33:58 and read 3195 times.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 102):
You know, you keep going on and on about this, and you make no sense.

It does make sense. What makes no sense is the continuing of tax free rides when out nation's debt is so high.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 102):
What you are talking about are tax deductions.

Not even close.

The money an employer pays out for nanny care is not listed as income on the employees tax return. It doesn't even reach the 1040 so it cannot be a deduction. For some really queer reason the employees believe that they are ENTITLED to this tax free ride.

On the personal retirement programs the money does not have a deduction, but an exclusion from income tax. Again, not a deduction. For some really queer reason the employees believe that they are ENTITLED to this tax free ride.

Both of these tax free rides that are not affordable.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 102):
It makes no sense.

What makes no sense is the continuation of these tax free rides when they are no longer affordable. Before hitting Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security lets address those programs where the taxpayer has not made any contributions.

Quoting par13del (Reply 103):
we have seen time and time again where the waste money,

And that is just like large companies You get a large organization and it is not going to have that much efficiency either.

Quoting par13del (Reply 103):
all we need to look at is the billions spent attempting and trying tp upgrade the ATC system.

Part of our problem, IMO, is the large groups of "consultants" pulling in a lot of tax dollars. We would be far better off looking at the successes outside the country. Australia has done a good job, as has New Zealand.

Quoting par13del (Reply 103):
When it is done it will be time to start over again as the technology will be obsolete based on how long it has taken.

Government technology will always be behind the consumer world. Building a new fighter or destroyer? The technology used will be out of date before the first delivery because the selection and build time is longer than innovation in the consumer space. Same with ACT or any other major government technology.

Quoting par13del (Reply 103):
If a GST is put in place I think it is reasonable to have some lowering of taxes,

When we bring the debt down and clear out all the state level obligations related to sales taxes. It's far more complicated than you think.

Quoting par13del (Reply 104):
the story has me wondering why child benefits were being given to everyone in the first place.

The answer for the US is simple - Newt threw it into the "Contract With America" in order to win an election. We've been paying ever since, but the GOP won't care as they did win that election.

I have to laugh when I read about this socialist handout as it IS a socialist GOP program. And a socialist program that I doubt if even the Tea Party would publicly try to end.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-01-06 17:26:47 and read 3190 times.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 105):
And that is just like large companies You get a large organization and it is not going to have that much efficiency either.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 105):
Part of our problem, IMO, is the large groups of "consultants" pulling in a lot of tax dollars. We would be far better off looking at the successes outside the country. Australia has done a good job, as has New Zealand.

Based on constitution, the power of states within the US are not duplicated in any other country, most others started out as central authorities who delegated some rights.
If you use the structure that exist in the USA shifting more of the administration to the states may be a more viable solution thus limiting the growth of the federal government.
Will it cost more to duplicate one federal organization 52 times, yes, but the 52 states already have organizations which must exist, so dual use should be an option, the financial question is whether the increase in administration cost will out-weigh the waste. I suspect control will be the more important question which people will fight over.
Secondly, it will make each state have their own consultants who may be much easier to control, as there will be 52 places where they have to work and 52 set's of media and citizens groups to monitor the proceedings.
Thirdly, there are numerous options that the Federal government still have within their means to bring rouge states in line.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: Ken777
Posted 2013-01-06 18:43:14 and read 3180 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 106):
If you use the structure that exist in the USA shifting more of the administration to the states may be a more viable solution thus limiting the growth of the federal government.

I believe in the concept of equal protection under the law and I believe that is significant'y diluted when you move authority to the states. Medicaid is a classic example. Various states deliver solid programs and some (especially in the South) disqualify people who are FAR below the poverty line. Alabama is a great example. If you make over $2,099.90 a YEAR then you make too much to qualify for Medicaid. That is $175 a MONTH. I cannot understand how any moral person can accept that. It not only shows just how much the Medicaid portion of ObamaCare is needed - it also clearly demonstrates why we need a federal government to set standards and, in situations like Medicaid, to take back failed programs (and the money) from the states.

Link for the states and Medicaid caps:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...acare_n_2272151.html#slide=1390250

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: Dreadnought
Posted 2013-01-06 20:14:34 and read 3170 times.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 105):
The money an employer pays out for nanny care is not listed as income on the employees tax return. It doesn't even reach the 1040 so it cannot be a deduction. For some really queer reason the employees believe that they are ENTITLED to this tax free ride.

But it is a deduction for the employer. It is a perk. Like free parking. It started being a common perk in WWII when government wage freezes were in place and employers needed to find some way of attracting people to work for them.

Oh, and by the way, doesn't it bother you that now, the government is telling everyone that employer-paid healthcare IS a right, and that you ARE entitled to it, via Obamacare?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 105):
On the personal retirement programs the money does not have a deduction, but an exclusion from income tax. Again, not a deduction. For some really queer reason the employees believe that they are ENTITLED to this tax free ride.

Both of these tax free rides that are not affordable.

First of all, how is an exclusion different from a deduction? Secondly, it is more of a tax deferment rather than a deduction (or exclusion). You don't pay income tax now, but you will when you liquidate those funds at retirement. Right now the federal government collects billions in taxes on money that was set aside 20, 30 years ago. Government gets its cut at the end.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 105):
What makes no sense is the continuation of these tax free rides when they are no longer affordable. Before hitting Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security lets address those programs where the taxpayer has not made any contributions.

Ken, we would not need Social Security or Medicaid if people were responsible for their own retirement savings. Those programs were supposed to be last resorts - to make sure you didn't freeze out in the streets if you somehow lost everything (as many did in the Depression). So, I have 3 questions:

1) Do you believe that people should be made responsible to save up for themselves, and SS should only be just enough to keep a (cheap) roof over your head, or do you want people to be able to live comfortably on SS payments alone?

2) Do you think the government should encourage people to save up for themselves?

3) If yes, what form should those encouragements take, if not a tax deferment?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 107):
I believe in the concept of equal protection under the law and I believe that is significant'y diluted when you move authority to the states.

But if you are not happy with the way Alabama handles medicaid (in your example), you are free to move to another state. Alabama will eventually sort itself out, after getting a lot of complaints and seeing how other states do better. But giving the federal government monopoly power eliminates your power of choice. If they screw up, you are screwed, and you have nowhere to go to escape.

[Edited 2013-01-06 20:26:18]

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-01-07 03:35:14 and read 3154 times.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 107):
I believe in the concept of equal protection under the law and I believe that is significant'y diluted when you move authority to the states.

Hence my original point 3 quoted again below.

Quoting par13del (Reply 106):
Thirdly, there are numerous options that the Federal government still have within their means to bring rouge states in line.

The Federal government does not have to eliminate the state to provide protections for the American people, which is essentially what your example details. Since the civil war, the federal government has been able to maintain the country without got to war with the individual states, so they have power and their are alternatives to national control to accomplish things that the country requires.

There are Federal standards for many items in the USA today, all enforced while the state continue to administer the process / procedures. On this site for example, we know that a/c have to be maintained based on rules put in place by the FAA and monitored by the NTSB, the uniforminity and safety of aviation through out the country is not being met by having all mechanics and engineers become Federal employees.
Folks may like having the federal government control and run everything, even though you admit that such large organizations create waste, howvever, the option is not to do nothing or just accept the status quo, there are alternatives.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: Ken777
Posted 2013-01-07 09:39:15 and read 3132 times.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 108):
But it is a deduction for the employer.

And so is your salary/wage.

And both nanny care and your salary are income to you and should be taxed the same IF you are going to make any changes to Medicare. People receiving Medicare have paid into the system during their working lives. People getting a tax free ride with employer nanny care haven't made that investment so they should be the first to take a hit because of hte debt.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 108):
It is a perk.

"Perk"? That is cute name for income used to avoid taxes. It is no longer cute, however, when it hides lost tax revenue that forces cuts to Social Security & Medicare.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 108):
Right now the federal government collects billions in taxes on money that was set aside 20, 30 years ago.

And for each $100 Billion that is received $100 Billion is lost because the government had to wait so many years (Future Value) and also because the taxpayer got an extra discount on the tax rates.

We, as a nation, gained nothing on that program. It was cute while it was affordable, but it is no longer affordable.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 108):
Government gets its cut at the end.

Wrong. Government gets a reduced cut in the end. First look at the declining value because of Future Value. Now add in the interest that the Government is paying out all of those years.

Those programs are basically government give aways to those people who are crying the loudest to end Social Security progress.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 108):
First of all, how is an exclusion different from a deduction?

When you exclude income you have a zero tax liability related to that income. With a deduction you reduce the taxable income, but your tax reduction is limited to your tax bracket, and by the limitations on the deduction, such as on Medical shown on Schedule A.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 108):
en, we would not need Social Security or Medicaid if people were responsible for their own retirement savings.

You need to add a few things, like everyone was paid a wage significantly higher than todays minimum wage. That would be a wage that allowed for workers to pay their bills, live in a decent (but not necessary large) home, be able to have reliable transport to work and taking the kids to school, be able to save money for both retirement and the kids education.

Of course that also means that there needs to be no abnormal medical expenses, such as cancer hitting the home, wiping out those savings. Or an accident that turns the finances of a family upside down.

If you believe that most Americans can handle all those issues then you also believe in the tooth fairy.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 108):
Do you believe that people should be made responsible to save up for themselves, and SS should only be just enough to keep a (cheap) roof over your head,

I believe that people should be paying into Social Security because that is going to be a major part of their retirement financing - regardless of their other retirement planning.

As soon as you try to strip it down to poverty payments you will be throwing the country into a deep depression. Go back and look how some states treat Medicare for the poor, It's in the slide show at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...acare_n_2272151.html#slide=1390250

You can also look above (Reply 107)where I show Alabama as one example. Make over $175 a MONTH and you make too much to qualify for their Medicaid program. You may want Social Security to be run like Medicare, but that delivers poverty at a level that you can't conceive.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 108):
or do you want people to be able to live comfortably on SS payments alone?

Living comfortably is defined differently by people based on their lives before going on Social Security. For many it means being able to buy food & medicines, keep reasonably warm in the winter and reasonably cool in the heat of summer.

Social Security doesn't allow people to go out and buy a new car, or travel around the world. Those checks go to pay rent, utilities, health care and food.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 108):
Oh, and by the way, doesn't it bother you that now, the government is telling everyone that employer-paid healthcare IS a right, and that you ARE entitled to it, via Obamacare?

I have no problems with as long as the related government programs (financed by the people receiving the benefits) are not attacked. But when you go after Medicare and Social Security then you need to FIRST to after those tax free rides. That shouldn't be complicated to understand.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: StarAC17
Posted 2013-01-07 11:11:11 and read 3122 times.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 102):
In the case of Switzerland, 100% of the cost of health insurance is borne by the individual, government pays nothing, just about every home has a fully automatic assault rifle in it, and there is no minimum wage. What's your point?

Regarding Swiss health care I would say that you pay into private insurance that everyone is mandated to buy into it, if you do that then you are paying for the care of others already because that is how insurance works. Where I live tax dollars do the same thing and the difference really is semantics.

Some points from what I found on Wikipedia:

- Swiss are required to purchase basic health insurance, which covers a range of treatments detailed in the Federal Act.

- The insured person pays the insurance premium for the basic plan up to 8% of their personal income. If a premium is higher than this, the government gives the insured person a cash subsidy to pay for any additional premium.

- Regulations require "a 25-year-old and an 80-year-old individual pay a given insurer the same premium for the same type of policy.... Overall, then, the Swiss health system is a variant of the highly government-regulated social insurance systems of Europe... that rely onostensibly private, nonprofit health insurers that also are subject to uniform fee schedules and myriad government regulations.

This would be a great system for the US to adopt but I bet the insurers in the US would lobby against it because they make more money by finding a way to deny claims. Also the Swiss have a reasonable deductible to make sure the system isn't abused.

Now for some points on gun laws in Switzerland.

- To purchase a firearm in a commercial shop, one needs to have a Waffenerwerbsschein (weapon acquisition permit).

- To buy a gun from an individual, no permit is needed, but the seller is expected to establish a reasonable certainty that the purchaser will fulfill the above-mentioned conditions (usually done through a Criminal Records Bureau check). The participants in such a transaction are required to prepare a written contract detailing the identities of both vendor and purchaser, the weapon's type, manufacturer, and serial number. The law requires the written contract to be kept for ten years by the buyer and seller. The seller is also required to see some official ID from the purchaser, for such sales are only allowed to Swiss nationals and foreigners with a valid residence permit, with the exception of those foreigners that come from certain countries

- Basically, the sale of automatic firearms, selective fire weapons and certain accessories such as sound suppressors ("silencers") is forbidden (as is the sale of certain disabled automatic firearms which have been identified as easily restored to fully automatic capability).

Again very sensible things that would as I see never fly in the US (it would be deemed unconstitutional) especially the point about private sales and getting a permit in advance. The reason that gun crime is so low in Switzerland in because the government has a good system to make sure that people who are of risk aren't getting guns.

Finally regarding the minimum wage, I would argue that the Swiss know that paying people a living wage means that they reduce the amount the government has to pay out in enlistments to its people and makes the country more productive. I would argue that the percentage of Swiss people in unions is far higher than Americans which creates the same effect, it's just negotiated and not mandated.

In the US the people who want to ditch the minimum want to pay people less than it and it isn't a living one at the present time to begin with. That is going to create a bigger load on the government to assist those individuals who won't be able to support themselves at $5 an hour.

Topic: RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2013-01-07 15:15:32 and read 3104 times.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 111):
Again very sensible things that would as I see never fly in the US (it would be deemed unconstitutional) especially the point about private sales and getting a permit in advance. The reason that gun crime is so low in Switzerland in because the government has a good system to make sure that people who are of risk aren't getting guns.

What you described is almost how the US does it. Most states don't require a permit to purchase guns, but private people have the same expectation to not sell to criminals, and select fire and automatic weapons are basically banned (they are extremely limited, and I think the has been 1 case of a legal fully auto being used in the past few decades.) Silencers are allowed (as well as short barreled rifles) but you need to get a $200 tax stamp, a 6 month or so background check, do something with your local police, forgot what, can't move the item across state lines without prior notification, and I think the ATF can come in and check on the weapons whenever they want. The legal fully autos, in addition to being tens of thousands of dollars, also have the $200 tax stamp.

So what you described is a lot like America... and these tax stamped weapons hardly ever are used in crime (honestly, when is the last time you saw someone use a legal silencer on a crime?) I'm sure there is more to the Swiss laws, but I think the permits would do a lot of good. Takes away no rights but provides a bit more accountability


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/