Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?  
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5515 posts, RR: 8
Posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6161 times:

The "fiscal cliff" negotiations are supposedly taking place now and both sides are busy blaming the other for not being responsible or responsive, etc. I am not interested in "What can the other guys do", I want to know what policies and programs and platform planks of YOURS are you willing to cut, change, adjust, reduce, limit and otherwise compromise on?

We all know everyone can tell others what they need to do and change to make things "better" but the question really is "Which of your own ox's are you willing to gore" that will make a meaningful impact to the process and get things moving and help to resolve the budget problem?

So don't tell me what others should do but what you could do, what you are willing to do to compromise.

I can start with myself but I am very much a "middle grounder" and can compromise on most everything, from tax increases (as I have stated many times before) to cuts in welfare programs and military budgets (including personnel pay and retirement etc). Personally I somewhat like the cuts and changes the "fiscal cliff" actually imposes but I think the way it is set to implement could badly impact the country as a whole and it needs to be a managed "fall off the cliff" to reduce any deleterious impacts. I was also a supporter of the Simpson-Bowles Plan:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/Bowles_Simpson_Brief.cfm
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-...e-simpson-bowles-debt-plan-2012-10

So if you consider yourself a card carrying Democrat or "Liberal", a Republican or a "Conservative" what of your sacred policies and programs would you cut change and compromise on?

Tugg


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
300 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 697 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6135 times:

(my wife is American so we do pay US income taxes even though we live in Sweden)
.
Even though we supported Obama, we actually agree with the Republicans that "entitlements" are getting out of control. Especially for end-of-life care: sorry grandpa, but we can no longer afford to pay $100k for aggressive care in the last year of your long life with the deficit so big.

So, We are for

1. entitlement cuts.
2. And defense cuts.


.... In whatever amount is necessary to reduce the deficit substantially and put America on sound financial footing.



Pu

[Edited 2012-11-30 11:07:22]

User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3360 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6118 times:

Quoting Pu (Reply 1):
1. entitlement cuts.
2. And defense cuts.

These are the things that need to be addressed, the problem is one party wants to cut defense and the other wants to cut entitlements without touching the other.

Am I the only one here that thinks that the do nothing approach is the best one.

I know some Americans do not like to hear this but as an outsider I do think the US is under taxed for the services provided. So while spending needs to be cut revenues need to rise and these tax cuts which were supposed to be temporary need to go.

I will concede the timing sucks because of the sluggish economy but this should be the long term goal. If it can be done without tax hikes fine but it just doesn't seem feasible.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6116 times:

As a conservative, and one who is economically literate, I believe that with only control of the House, there is no way for the GOP to exert sufficient control over the government to prevent an eventual collapse (even assuming the entire GOP congressional delegation is disciplined enough to vote for the right things, which history shows is rarely the case.

If I were a true cynic, I would have the GOP give Obama everything he wants.

Right now, during the "fiscal cliff" negotiations, Obama has demanded tax increases, but has not proposed any cost cuts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmHby9qO508

Check out minute 37:00 of the linked video Lehman makes a statement about spending. “We’re talking about reductions in the growth of spending.” He confirms that there will be no reduction in spending. Krone, sitting next to him, is drooling out of camera shot.

Washington does not spend less year-to-year. Ever. Is that clear? Negotiators are only negotiating amounts of spending increases and areas of such increases in spending. That’s it.

Therefore, if Obama gets his way, the deficit is reduced by about 5%, we will continue to run absurd deficits, the economy will start to tank again, a Greek-style meltdown will be set up for the next few years, and the Democrats will be unable to point at the GOP, because the GOP could say "hey, we gave you everything you wanted.

The good news is that the Democrats and progressivism would be marginalized for the next couple of generations as a failure. The bad news is that the realization would come at the expense of a ruined economy and crippled government.

So which is it? Fight Obama and get blamed for all wrongs, or let him run wild and hope we can pick up the pieces later? That is the question.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinewingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2238 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6110 times:

Social liberal/fiscal conservative here...said it a million times so that even a kindergartner would get it:

More Money In/Less Money Out. Raise taxes to Clinton/Gingrich levels and cut spending 10% across he board, and I mean every friggin government outlay...I don't care what the hell it's for...gets a 10% cut.

I'd concede a delay in Middle and Lower Income tax rates and let the wealthy shoulder the burden for 3-4 years but this would be an overall start. At the end of the day what really sticks in my craw about the resistance to the elimination of the temporary tax reduction Bush Jr. passed (remember that folks?), is that extreme Repubs call this a tax increase. But it's not, Bushie sold it to us a "temporary" reduction and then embarked on a global warfare campaign that drained the shit out of the balance books. Any idiot with basic math skills would understand the utter stupidity of such a move.

And don't forget, whether the top tax rates are 30%, 35%, or 39.5%, the top 1%-5% wealthiest people in this country have been accumulating wealth at ever increasing rates at the expense of everyone else for some 50 years now. The wealthy will survive. The bathroom remodels on the 4th vacation property or the second hand G550 may have to be delayed, but these folks will survive. Donna Summer has a national anthem ready to go for this jet set.

I can't understand how there's even a debate about this nonsense.


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5515 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6104 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3):
Right now, during the "fiscal cliff" negotiations, Obama has demanded tax increases, but has not proposed any cost cuts.

Yeah, I don't like that at all and disagree with it. President Obama needs to step forward and lead and say what Democrat favorites should be cut and push and help the Democrats make the needed changes to get the budget better balanced (it won't be balanced in the next two years).

However have the Republican's come back with a response (public, private, or otherwise) that says "Here is what we propose raising and cutting....". I know they have said "get serious" but I want each side to propose something and then work to come together. I don't see that yet, I see people positioning themselves next to the lifeboats so they can survive and blame someone else.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3):
So which is it? Fight Obama and get blamed for all wrongs, or let him run wild and hope we can pick up the pieces later? That is the question.

Fight and work with and do your best to fix things. If you are on a sinking ship and some starts a fire do you help them start it or do you be responsible and stop that person and then work to stop the ship from sinking? In my opinion you do both, I can't stand fatalists that decide they should instead just stand around and teach the people on the boat a lesson and let it sink... that is stupid and does not help.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2511 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6101 times:

Quoting wingman (Reply 4):

Ditto just about everything you said. I for one would be willing to pay a tax increase (a reasonable one) in return for spending cuts - specifically on defense. I come from a family with a long history of military service but think the amount of money we spend on defense is way beyond absurd.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3):

You didn't answer the OP's question - what would YOU be willing to do?


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6078 times:

Quoting ER757 (Reply 6):
You didn't answer the OP's question - what would YOU be willing to do?

I'm willing to see tax increase - accross the board - back to Clinton-era levels. But i vehemantly disagree with Obama's "only on the rich" approach, even though personally I would benefit from it. It is morally wrong to have the wealthy pay all the taxes and the rest enjoy all the benefits.

This must stop. We are destroying (or have already destroyed) incentives for people to work.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2012/11/welfare-cliff0446.jpg

http://2-ps.googleusercontent.com/h/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2012/11/996x742xtax-burden.jpg.pagespeed.ic.GF4qk1vvZA.jpg



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6072 times:

Defense cuts would probably be really bad for me personally, but I've supported defense cuts for a while now. We can still be the world's best military at a fraction of the cost


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4588 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6072 times:

I think the truth of the matter here , is that both sides want all or nothing.
The true solution should be a frog in boiling water solution.
the "Cliff solution" is just that, it is a cliff. A sharp raise in taxes and a sharp reduction in spending. We can't just suddently balance the budget and cut the defict at the same time. However we need to make the spending and revenue come into line.

The real solution involves a "bunny slope". A quarter percent here, and a quarter percent there. In both cuts and spending.
implement a 8 new hires or 9 new hires for every 10 federal retires.
raise the social security qualification age gradually to 70 or 72.
hold or minimize federal spending to 1% increases.
Look at the Medical HealthCare plan and make sure it makes fiscal sense. Medicare and Obama care are going to be greatly muddled by the current implementation. Maybe single payer still makes sense.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3):
Washington does not spend less year-to-year. Ever. Is that clear? Negotiators are only negotiating amounts of spending increases and areas of such increases in spending. That’s it.

It doesn't and maybe it shouldn't. The US isn't losing population, so in theory there is always more money. However the growth in spending should be limited while Revenue is not keeping up with spending.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2511 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6061 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 7):
I'm willing to see tax increase - accross the board - back to Clinton-era levels. But i vehemantly disagree with Obama's "only on the rich" approach, even though personally I would benefit from it. It is morally wrong to have the wealthy pay all the taxes and the rest enjoy all the benefits.

Makes a lot of sense to me as well. Why can't the clowns in Washington figure out that most people would be accepting of a tax increase if it was fair to all and that spending be brought down at the same time? Hell, if our group can agree on this stuff, anyone can!!


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6047 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 9):
It doesn't and maybe it shouldn't. The US isn't losing population, so in theory there is always more money. However the growth in spending should be limited while Revenue is not keeping up with spending.

Federal spending has increased by 40% in the past 5 years. Has the population grown 40%? No, and 2007 spending was too high as it was (Obama even called it "unpatriotic").

I've gone through this in another thread - you can't tax your way out of this. A tax increase might drop the deficit by less than 10% (closer to 5%) - the rest has to come from budget cuts.

What exactly would I cut?

1) All federal employees (right up to the President) gets a 10% salary cut. Military is exempt - they don't make a lot to begin with.
2) All federal pensions get converted to 401Ks.
3) Suspension of all international financial assistance
4) All federal departments to submit a solid plan to reduce bureaucratic headcount by 50% over 10 years.
5) All federal assistance programs (welfare, food stamps, CHIP etc) see 20% cut from every check they send out.
6) All "cost-plus" development contracts to be frozen, unless already in propduction or pre-production.
7) We start withdrawing all our troops from Japan, Korea, Germany, Middle East, and everywhere else. If they want us to stay, they should pay for the bases, housing etc.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4588 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6040 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):
Federal spending has increased by 40% in the past 5 years. Has the population grown 40%? No, and 2007 spending was too high as it was (Obama even called it "unpatriotic").

But Federal Spending increased due to items already in the books. Social Security, Medicare, and Defense all went skyrocketing, as did Welfare, Especially when incomes plummeted.

The budget submitted by Bush already had a 1.3 trillion Deficit built in, and Obama hasn't changed that much. In 2012 the gulf narrowed ,and it will continue to do so, as more people go back to work.

That is the key. Revenue needs to be raised while spending goes down as the economy expands.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):
I've gone through this in another thread - you can't tax your way out of this. A tax increase might drop the deficit by less than 10% (closer to 5%) - the rest has to come from budget cuts.

I don't disagree, and nothing in my post suggests I do. I just happen to believe, you don't build an efficient tunnel by drilling from only one side.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):

1) All federal employees (right up to the President) gets a 10% salary cut. Military is exempt - they don't make a lot to begin with.

I'd go with 7%, that is what I got just before Obama took office, and my company never gave it back. However I would do it gradually to avoid the shock effect.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):
4) All federal departments to submit a solid plan to reduce bureaucratic headcount by 50% over 10 years.

Population continues to expand, and bureaucratic headcount is subjective, especially as the economy improves.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5400 posts, RR: 14
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6035 times:

Quoting tugger (Thread starter):
"Which of your own ox's are you willing to gore"

I wasn't going to post to this thread, because, all that came to mind initially were platitudes. But, then I got thinking: what would I cut? The answer: I don't know, because I really don't know what's the totality of services the federal government provides me.

Quite simply, I don't receive a check from the government at any level. I pay in. But, what underlying, non-essential services, do I benefit (or suffer) from, that I can do without?

Example: I just bought a house. It was not FHA. Did I benefit (or suffer), anywhere in the process from government largesse? I'm sure I did, I've no clue how. I know I signed a HUD form and I understand the function of the form, but, what was the cost and could the transaction been handled, just as efficiently (or more so) by using a form generated by the attorney?

So, I really can't answer the question, at least not in great detail, because I don't know how far into my life the government has encroached. That's a problem.

But,:
-I'm willing to see tax reform, to include cutting or eliminating several deductions...some of which I benefit from.
-I would like to see defense spending analyzed and waste cut out. Streamline procurement. No one in government should get rich from defense procurement.
-I really want a top to bottom analysis of every department in the government looking for duplication and waste. Example: it seems that just about every agency in the federal government has a law enforcement arm. I say consolidate law enforcement under one or two agencies and save those resources. That means the surviving agencies get bigger, but I'll guess, that if it's done right (in other words, the private sector way) we will save butt-loads of money...and I'm talking J-Lo butt. Just an example.

Can we talk SSA? Eliminate the payroll tax 'holiday' and eliminate the cap. Oh, and means test the damn thing. Let's toss out the fiction that this is not an entitlement. When you get out more than you pay in, it's a entitlement. So, you want to make an income in the US, you pay into SSA, whether you expect to get a benefit or not (due to means) in the end.

Here's a novel one...any legislation passed (to include regulations) need to provide an accurate cost for implementation and enforcement. They must also tell us what it's going to cost the taxpayer to comply.

I could go on, but...platitudes.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 2):
I do think the US is under taxed for the services provided.

You're right. But, the question really is: Why is the US government providing all these services. Under what Constitutional authority? Eliminate federal services that are more properly provided by local and state governments. Or, better yet, by the private sector. I've said it before...I don't think that I'm taxed to high. I do believe that my taxes are going to the wrong entities. I interact (on the surface) more with my local government than my state government. I interact more with my state government than the federal government (I think...see my first point). My tax distribution should reflect those interactions.
Quoting tugger (Reply 5):
President Obama needs to step forward and lead and say what Democrat favorites should be cut and push and help the Democrats make the needed changes to get the budget better balanced (it won't be balanced in the next two years).

President Obama needs to get off the campaign trail and lead. He is the president. He needs to stop spouting platitudes and appealing to his base. Again, he needs to lead.

And, no...it won't be balanced in 2 or 4 years, but when all we talk about is reductions in budgetary increases...we may as well get ready to have a Greece-like meltdown. And it will be sooner than later.

Oh, one more thing...zero-based budgeting...how about we pick a couple of agencies and try it out. Instead of annual budgets, let's shoot for bi-annual and take a bit of the pain away. Let's see how it works. Maybe we can...gasp...save some money, when the administrators need to approve every expenditure. Then freaking hold those administrators accountable to their budgets.

[Edited 2012-11-30 12:46:25]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2511 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6029 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):
1) All federal employees (right up to the President) gets a 10% salary cut. Military is exempt - they don't make a lot to begin with.
2) All federal pensions get converted to 401Ks.
3) Suspension of all international financial assistance
4) All federal departments to submit a solid plan to reduce bureaucratic headcount by 50% over 10 years.
5) All federal assistance programs (welfare, food stamps, CHIP etc) see 20% cut from every check they send out.
6) All "cost-plus" development contracts to be frozen, unless already in propduction or pre-production.
7) We start withdrawing all our troops from Japan, Korea, Germany, Middle East, and everywhere else. If they want us to stay, they should pay for the bases, housing etc.

I like a lot of these, but have a concern re #4. You cut them by 50%, that's a lot more people on the un-employment line, so you save salaries but increase un-employemnt compensation spending. Without doubt, the boated government payroll is a HUGE issue and needs to be addressed, but 50%? You start to risk quality of services provided at that point and let's face it, the existing quality is less than desirable in many instances already.


User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5400 posts, RR: 14
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6012 times:

Quoting ER757 (Reply 14):
You cut them by 50%, that's a lot more people on the un-employment line, so you save salaries but increase un-employemnt compensation spending.

If you do it over 10 or 15 years, most of that headcount goes away due to attrition.

Quoting ER757 (Reply 14):
You start to risk quality of services provided at that point and let's face it, the existing quality is less than desirable in many instances already.

Could that be because of the bureaucracy? Because the agency is so heavy, it can't move efficiently?

Quoting casinterest (Reply 12):
Revenue needs to be raised while spending goes down as the economy expands.

I think we raise revenue through tax code reform, e.g. closing loop holes and limiting deductions for 'the rich'. Remember, if you're not paying any tax due to deductions and credits, you're not going to get hurt by an increase in the marginal rate.

Quoting wingman (Reply 4):
More Money In/Less Money Out. Raise taxes to Clinton/Gingrich levels and cut spending 10% across he board, and I mean every friggin government outlay...I don't care what the hell it's for...gets a 10% cut.

Not at all a fan of this. Some agencies can stand to cut a lot more than 10% and some can't. We need to review, audit, analyze...whatever...and come up with the right number for any given agency.

[Edited 2012-11-30 13:01:56]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6006 times:

Quoting ER757 (Reply 14):
I like a lot of these, but have a concern re #4. You cut them by 50%, that's a lot more people on the un-employment line, so you save salaries but increase un-employemnt compensation spending.

In terms of adding value to the economy, there is no economic difference between paying a federal employee $50K in salary and benefits, and paying an unemployed person $50K unemployment benefits. Government employees (with very few exceptions) are overhead - and while you need some overhead (like companies do), it does not add value.

Quoting ER757 (Reply 14):
Without doubt, the boated government payroll is a HUGE issue and needs to be addressed, but 50%? You start to risk quality of services provided at that point

1) That's what computers are for.
2) It should be an incentive for federal bureaucracies to simplify what they do. For example, you you drastically simplify tax returns, so that everyone (millionaires and Burger King employees alike) files a simple 1-page return, and you impose tax territoriality and stop taxing people overseas, you could probably cut the IRS headcount by 80-90%.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinePu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 697 posts, RR: 13
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5963 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3):
a Greek-style meltdown

Since the Fed can and does monetise debt all the time, with no inflation or other terrifying consequences, I think this is impossible. America can always just role back its debt by buying it back, Greece can not.

Can you explain how the US could get into a situation where its debt is ever increasing but it lacks BOTH the ability to raise revenue or buy back debt (like Greece) ?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3):
Obama has demanded tax increases, but has not proposed any cost cuts.

As mentioned above I am for cuts in "entitlements" and defense. But since the the rest of the industrialised world has a government spending share of gdp at 40% or so, some as high as 50%....the only CERTAIN "problem" with Obama's plan is ideological, it seems to me: he is wrestling control of the economy into the public sector from the private sector. There is no experience in other first world nations that this has been a disaster, can you please outline why you are predicting this would be such a catastrophe if the Dems do this, eg, tax and spend more?




Pu

[Edited 2012-11-30 14:32:49]

User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2511 posts, RR: 7
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5937 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 16):
In terms of adding value to the economy, there is no economic difference between paying a federal employee $50K in salary and benefits, and paying an unemployed person $50K unemployment benefits.

I get that, but (please forgive this one - I am not as well-versed in economics as you) how does that in any way help balance the budget or reduce the deficit? That is, after all, the goal of this exercise. I'm sure I'm missing part of your point, please enlighten me.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 16):
For example, you you drastically simplify tax returns, so that everyone (millionaires and Burger King employees alike) files a simple 1-page return, and you impose tax territoriality and stop taxing people overseas, you could probably cut the IRS headcount by 80-90%.

Now that's a plan I can get behind!!   


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5938 times:

Quoting Pu (Reply 17):
Since the Fed can and does monetise debt all the time, with no inflation or other terrifying consequences, I think this is impossible. America can always just role back its debt by buying it back, Greece can not.

First of all the Fed did not start monetizing the debt until 2010.

Inflation is not a problem as long as we struggle along with high unemployment and lackluster growth, which keeps inflation down. The irony of this situation, is that if somehow we recover (let's say a new industry pops up like the 90's internet boom) and unemployment drops back down to 5% or so, I think you will see a sharp catch-up of inflation that will wipe out all the financial gains from such a recovery (debtors will gain but creditors will lose), especially after inflation throws the usual damp towel on business growth - because in high inflation situations businesses will not invest and expand unless assured of much greater profit margins than normal. You can't augment the money supply like this without it eventually biting you in the ass.

Quoting Pu (Reply 17):
There is no experience in other first world nations that this has been a disaster, can you please outline why you are predicting this would be such a catastrophe if the Dems do this, eg, tax and spend more?

One of the big differences between the US and other countries (Europe in particular) is that the US has the most progressive tax system anywhere, and that limits how much money the government can receive. Not only is the US Income tax system more weighted against the wealthy and does not tax half the population at all, but the US has no national sales tax (or VAT). Most of Europe has a VAT of around 20% - which is very un-progressive and is a huge source of revenue.

Unless the US increases taxes on the middle and lower classes, through VAT and/or making the tax system less progressive, there is no way in hell the US can grow the federal government to the size of those in Europe.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5935 times:

Quoting ER757 (Reply 18):
I get that, but (please forgive this one - I am not as well-versed in economics as you) how does that in any way help balance the budget or reduce the deficit? That is, after all, the goal of this exercise. I'm sure I'm missing part of your point, please enlighten me.

Because a federal employee will stay in government service until retirement if he can. Throw him out on the street and eventually he'll have to go out and do something useful. So short term savings are limited, long term are huge.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2511 posts, RR: 7
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5929 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 20):
Because a federal employee will stay in government service until retirement if he can. Throw him out on the street and eventually he'll have to go out and do something useful. So short term savings are limited, long term are huge.

Got it - thanks for explaining, much appreciated!


User currently offlinePu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 697 posts, RR: 13
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5922 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 19):

is that the US has the most progressive tax system anywhere

I think you are drifting towards the ideological again, nothing offered is factually convincing in your revenue arguments.

The US tax system is more progressive than Europe, in an accurate reflection of the fact that US income is so heavily weighted towards top earners. If the gini coefficient in the US was like the western European norm, your argument that taxes must fall onto the middle classes to raise revenue would be more convincing. But since so much of wealth is sent to top earners in America, taxing the wealthy higher is just a reflection of where a lopsided portion of the money is at.

It seems to me you just want it to be more "fair" to your value system ideals that everyone should pay for government and that no one should get a free ride. The wealthy aren't investing in America anyway, they aren't creating any jobs - except overseas.


Pu


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5898 times:

Quoting Pu (Reply 22):
The wealthy aren't investing in America anyway, they aren't creating any jobs - except overseas.

Now who's being ideological?

Quoting Pu (Reply 22):
I think you are drifting towards the ideological again, nothing offered is factually convincing in your revenue arguments.

I'm sorry, but your credibility on this issue is hardly one to crow about.

Quoting Pu (Reply 22):
The US tax system is more progressive than Europe, in an accurate reflection of the fact that US income is so heavily weighted towards top earners. If the gini coefficient in the US was like the western European norm, your argument that taxes must fall onto the middle classes to raise revenue would be more convincing. But since so much of wealth is sent to top earners in America, taxing the wealthy higher is just a reflection of where a lopsided portion of the money is at.

You are partially correct, but only partially. While income in the US is more stratified, tax revenue is even more stratified according to OECD. Share of taxes of the richest 10% divided by share of market income of the richest 10% is 1.35, the highest ratio among the OECD-24. Your country of Norway has a very unprogressive ratio of 0.95. Most highly developed countries have a rate around 1.1 to 1.2.

Considering that the accelerating stratification of income in the US coincides very interestingly with the efforts in Washington to make the tax code more and more progressive (including GWB's tax policy) over the past couple of generations, I put to you the following hypothesis - that the more progressive you make your tax system, the greater the income stratification you get. I think a detailed study of this would prove this theory holds water. And it is for this reason that European countries (which hardly lack for rich people) have never gone too far with their tax "progressivity"



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineIMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6287 posts, RR: 34
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5888 times:

I am willing to let the military and border patrol quit wasting so much money. Time for cutbacks though I do realize that in the current state of insanity there is little chance of that happening.


Damn, this website is getting worse daily.
User currently offlinePu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 697 posts, RR: 13
Reply 25, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5955 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 23):
Now who's being ideological?

You are.
In pre-globalisation America the wealthy created jobs in America with their extra cash. Not anymore. This isn't 1955 or 1985 but you are still living there.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...-longer-works-to-grow-the-economy/

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 23):
I put to you the following hypothesis - that the more progressive you make your tax system, the greater the income stratification you get

That may be so, and I have no argument either way. However, the Congressional Research Service says that lower rates for the wealthy create income inequality, while likewise reaffirming that reducing taxes on upper incomes is not strongly correlated with growth :

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/...althy-linked-to-income-inequality/
(this is a blog but look athe report it cites)


.
.

Really, my main interest is to quantify the apocalypse you claim (hope for) in post # 3. All that I can see is that Obama wants to turn the US government towards the European model: meaning it collects more and spends more. This has drawbacks, but no other experience in modern 1st world history suggests it creates the utter disaster you conjure up for this thread.



Pu

[Edited 2012-11-30 17:18:11]

User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 52
Reply 26, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5940 times:

Have the Dems actually agreed on any cuts yet? I'm starting to get suspicious... I am glad to see the Republicans budging but I'm very concerned the Democrats aren't... They'd be just as guilty as the Republicans of 2010-2012 IMO if they don't agree to some REAL budget cuts...


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3360 posts, RR: 9
Reply 27, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5962 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 13):
President Obama needs to get off the campaign trail and lead. He is the president. He needs to stop spouting platitudes and appealing to his base. Again, he needs to lead.

What he is doing is getting his supporters to push their congressman to agree with his plan. At the end of the day the president can only suggest what he wants and congress has to figure it out.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 13):
You're right. But, the question really is: Why is the US government providing all these services. Under what Constitutional authority? Eliminate federal services that are more properly provided by local and state governments. Or, better yet, by the private sector. I've said it before...I don't think that I'm taxed to high. I do believe that my taxes are going to the wrong entities. I interact (on the surface) more with my local government than my state government. I interact more with my state government than the federal government (I think...see my first point). My tax distribution should reflect those interactions.

I'm not sure how the US tax system works but a lot of the federal taxes you pay get funneled into your state in one way or another. Furthermore the end user pays the same rate regardless of where it goes so most people see what comes off their paycheck and not where its going.

Quoting Pu (Reply 17):
Since the Fed can and does monetise debt all the time, with no inflation or other terrifying consequences, I think this is impossible. America can always just role back its debt by buying it back, Greece can not.

The risk is inflation when you do this but because of the situation in Europe and the fact that the US is deemed the safest place to put money. The US will continue to get away with this until other countries stop doing the same thing, the benefit is that if they can keep the USD reasonably low then exports become cheaper.

Quoting Pu (Reply 22):
The wealthy aren't investing in America anyway, they aren't creating any jobs - except overseas.

Why is that??

My guess is no demand, people aren't spending like they used to, what is the point of investing and creating jobs if there is no reason to do it.
In China for example they are spending and the economy is growing. Since a many wealthy people are investors, that is where they are putting their money to get a return. When the US starts humming along again that money will come back.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 28, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5961 times:

Quoting Pu (Reply 25):
You are.
In pre-globalisation America the wealthy created jobs in America with their extra cash. Not anymore. This isn't 1955 or 1985 but you are still living there.

You completely made that up. The article you quote says nothing like it.

Quoting Pu (Reply 25):
That may be so, and I have no argument either way. However, the Congressional Research Service says the opposite of your claim.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/...althy-linked-to-income-inequality/
(this is a blog but look athe report it cites)

I am quite familiar with that report, which the CRS eventually withdrew due to serious problems with methodology, plus hints that Mr. Hungerford was a poorly masked shill for the Obama administration.

The report looks for a macroeconomic response to tax cuts within the first year of the policy change without sufficiently taking into account the time lag of economic policies. Fiscal changes usually take 2-3 years to show an impact. It also does not take into account other policies affecting growth, like interest rates, deductions or changes in regulations.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...1-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_blog.html

I do not argue (like some) that gross tax rates hinder or help economic growth. What is important are NET tax rates. Liberals like to point at the 1950s and say that rates were much high - which is true, but the NET rates actually paid were much lower, because of the huge deductions. Nobody paid even close to the top 80%. From what I can tell from historical IRS data, the highest actual rates paid in the 50s was around 30%.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinen318ea From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 29, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5955 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3):
So which is it? Fight Obama and get blamed for all wrongs, or let him run wild and hope we can pick up the pieces later? That is the question.

You hit that out of the park. Obama is incapable of actually acting as a leader. Instead of inflammatory sound bites on TV, a real leader would be in a room with Boehner, Pelosi,Reid and Mitchell until they had a deal.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 30, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5957 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 26):

Have the Dems actually agreed on any cuts yet? I'm starting to get suspicious... I am glad to see the Republicans budging but I'm very concerned the Democrats aren't... They'd be just as guilty as the Republicans of 2010-2012 IMO if they don't agree to some REAL budget cuts...

No. The latest plan from Obama delivered this morning to Congress apparently was "All tax increases, no spending cuts at all, and a new $50 billion stimulus plan", leading to a projected $1.6 trillion deficit in 2013.

The man is out of his mind.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5400 posts, RR: 14
Reply 31, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5942 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 27):
I'm not sure how the US tax system works but a lot of the federal taxes you pay get funneled into your state in one way or another.

Yes, but is it my money that gets funneled to Kentucky or my locality? No, my money is being spent on bridges in Alaska or California. Yes, we get money from others, but it's up to the federal government to decide how much of my money comes back to KY. Which means the state must toe the federal line.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 27):
Furthermore the end user pays the same rate regardless of where it goes so most people see what comes off their paycheck and not where its going.

I fill out 2 tax packages: one for the feds and one for the state. I know exactly how much of my money goes to the federal government, the state government and the various localities I pay taxes to.

Quoting n318ea (Reply 29):
You hit that out of the park. Obama is incapable of actually acting as a leader. Instead of inflammatory sound bites on TV, a real leader would be in a room with Boehner, Pelosi,Reid and Mitchell until they had a deal.

Exactly...instead he's campaigning at a K'Nex factory telling the employees there that he knows some congress-folks who won't be getting K'Nex for Christmas.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 52
Reply 32, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5940 times:

Quoting n318ea (Reply 29):
a real leader would be in a room with Boehner, Pelosi,Reid and Mitchell until they had a deal.

I know I can say a million things without being president myself, but I would definitely meet with the high leaders in congress if I was president. I'd also try my best (this plan may not work btw) to get congress to meet and not leave town until ______ is solved, screw their Christmas break. Of course, that one may backfire and I'd look like an idiot, but if I commanded enough respect and acted strong enough I bet you could drag them kicking and screaming to a resolution

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 30):
No. The latest plan from Obama delivered this morning to Congress apparently was "All tax increases, no spending cuts at all, and a new $50 billion stimulus plan", leading to a projected $1.6 trillion deficit in 2013.

I really hope something changes... I'd hate to see the Democrats go down the same road as the Republicans. I have been a strong critic of the GOP of late but that won't stop me from tearing into the Democrats if they think they can moan about compromises for 2 years and then pull this crap



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 33, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5932 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 32):
I really hope something changes... I'd hate to see the Democrats go down the same road as the Republicans. I have been a strong critic of the GOP of late but that won't stop me from tearing into the Democrats if they think they can moan about compromises for 2 years and then pull this crap

Look, I have some respect for you and you obviously argue in a pretty civilized manner from the center - sometimes a bit to the right or a bit to the left.

But how can you say this? The Dems have been this way for the past 6 years, ever since they took over Congress? For 6 years it's been "Our way, or we scream and yell about how unreasonable you are to the Media." For 3 years running, NO BUDGET - not because the GOP would not negotiate, but because Dems refused to even show up at the table - they announce 6 months prior that they won't even try.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 52
Reply 34, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5914 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 33):

I apologize, BOTH sides have been irresponsible the past, well, decade. It's been getting worse and I honestly think the GOP has been especially bad the past year and I very much respect their changed attitude of compromise.

We have seen the GOP send ideas to the Senate, true, but a most of them have been pretty outrageous in the eyes of Democrats and doomed to fail.

Really, I think the leaders of both parties need to sit down and work something out. Passing bills back and forth, knowing they'll get rejected, and complaining that the other side isn't compromising is the BS we've been seeing lately.

But thank you for keeping me honest. I think I've been more harsh towards the GOP lately because they were my party that's gone over the cliff



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8224 posts, RR: 8
Reply 35, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5911 times:

My preference today is to wait until January before getting serious.

First, that eliminates the GOP concerns about raising taxes - the sunset provisions in the Bush Tax Cuts will automatically take effect. Then Congress as a whole will be able to sit down and work on what tax cuts will be made. This is where the GOP can demonstrate their willingness to take care of the middle class - they can take care of them in a few days.

But there are things that can be reviewed over a few months. Start with the $1,000 per child per year socialist handout that the GOP used to win an election in the 90s. It is immediately cut in half. That will put a lot of people into a situation of paying taxes for the first time in years. We can talk about it, price it out and make a decision.

Next could be double taxing of dividends. I go with ending (again) the double taxing, but believe that the tax relief should be at the corporate level - not the individual level. Put it at the corporate level and you increase cash in companies that would be available for R&D, new plants or equipment, increasing the employee count, etc. In other words, put that tax break where it can help businesses grow. Not really rocket science IMO.

Capital gains? I believe it should simply be income. Not at special rates, but at normal income levels. Reality is that people will invest in the market when they believe they will make a profit. They will not invest if they see a loss - even if that loss is tax free. This also eliminates the problem of those in the financial sector who claim their income is not earned, but is a capital gains - so they start at the 15% tax rates and take their deductions and games from there.

And maybe we can FINALLY look at the tax free ride on Employer Nanny Care. The most effective approach is to disallow that tax free income by the individuals. But you will be able to deduct it on your "Medical Deductions". Eliminating the tax deduction by employers would cause them do drop nanny care faster than the country can get used to savings from universal coverage of core care.

Actually, maybe we need to look at the entire "cafeteria plan" tax free ride. An argument can easily be made that we can no longer afford it with our massive debt.

Quoting ER757 (Reply 14):
You cut them by 50%, that's a lot more people on the un-employment line, so you save salaries but increase un-employemnt compensation spending.

You also face a lot of delays when you want performance. Look at the VA - taking far too long getting new claims processed. We need more employees there to take care of vets from the ME Wars.

Same with departments like the CDC. You really want to cut the performance when a major health issue pops up?

Or how about cutting ATC? Cut them in half and you can cut commercial flights allowed. It would clean up the skies a lot, plus increase demand of the larger planes. Increase fees to cover all costs, plus a bit of a "surplus".

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 15):
Remember, if you're not paying any tax due to deductions and credits, you're not going to get hurt by an increase in the marginal rate.

That depends on how the reduction of the GOP Socialist Handout impacts your taxes.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 15):
Some agencies can stand to cut a lot more than 10% and some can't.



Just remember when it takes twice as long (minimum) to get anything you submit to be processed then you should be happy.

Of course when prison staffing is cut 10% you might find your home insurance goes up by at least that percentage.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 16):
In terms of adding value to the economy, there is no economic difference between paying a federal employee $50K in salary and benefits, and paying an unemployed person $50K unemployment benefits.

There is a difference. Someone earning $50K (in some parts of the country) can buy a modest home (house, townhouse or condo) which will generate more economic activity that the unemployed - especially if the unemployed are recently out of work and had a foreclosure take their home. Same with buying a car - used or modest. Someone working has more confidence in being active in the economy than someone out of a job. (And lenders have more confidence in them.)

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 16):
For example, you you drastically simplify tax returns, so that everyone (millionaires and Burger King employees alike) files a simple 1-page return,

Romney had a 200+ page tax return. Or was it 300+ Pages? There was a reason for that - loopholes. The wealthy are not going to give that up. They have the money for lobbyists and will spend that money to keep as many of their loopholes as possible. They are not going to a 1 page return.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 16):
and you impose tax territoriality and stop taxing people overseas,

That isn't going to happen. And you don't want your taxes increased to pay for that cut.

Quoting Pu (Reply 17):
America can always just role back its debt by buying it back, Greece can not.
Quoting Pu (Reply 17):
As mentioned above I am for cuts in "entitlements" and defense.

The problem with "entitlements" is that two (Social Security & Medicare) are basically purchased benefits. Taxpayers contribute their entire working lives to be covered (via the D&D insurance side) and to receive benefits when they retire. The more this country tears down the traditional protections for retirement the more unstable our economy will be.

Quoting Pu (Reply 17):
it seems to me: he is wrestling control of the economy into the public sector from the private sector.

In some situations, like health care, this is a pretty wise thing. Our private system is simply too screwed up to remain viable over the long term. That only leaves a short term benefit from those who profit from the system - especially in the insurance industry,

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 19):
One of the big differences between the US and other countries (Europe in particular) is that the US has the most progressive tax system anywhere, and that limits how much money the government can receive.

Our system, at first glance, appears to be progressive - until you look at the 70,000 pagers of loopholes.

Look at Romney - $20 Million Plus a year and a 13% tax rate. That look progressive to you?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 19):
Not only is the US Income tax system more weighted against the wealthy and does not tax half the population at all, but the US has no national sales tax (or VAT).

The lobbyists have made out system weighted FOR the wealthy. Half only get out of paying federal income taxes because (1) we have that Socialist GOP Handout for kids and (2) we also have a very large number of other taxes in one form or another that people in the bottom half do pay. And they pay at a higher percentage of their income than the wealthy.

Sales taxes at the various levels take the place of VAT. Most important levels for sales tax would be city, county and state. In some places you have school districts that gain revenues form sales taxes, else they depend on property taxes.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 20):
Because a federal employee will stay in government service until retirement if he can.

Unless, of course, they get hired away by the private sector. Far better than going on unemployment.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 20):
Throw him out on the street and eventually he'll have to go out and do something useful.

Like file for unemployment, food stamps, Medicaid, etc. My preference is to continue employment. I would move them to Social Security as I believe that would be more effective over the long haul.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 20):
So short term savings are limited, long term are huge.

Unless the long term effect of a smaller government is smaller services. A good example would be fewer ATC personnel so a forced reduction in traffic. To bring numbers down start with significant taxes on smaller planes. No reason for single aisle flights between New York and California when twin aisle can carry the same number of PAX with half the flights. Sound logical to you? At least we will have those long term savings. Add those to significantly higher fees and ATC can help reduce the country's debt.


User currently offlinecws818 From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1176 posts, RR: 2
Reply 36, posted (1 year 9 months 23 hours ago) and read 5879 times:

Quoting n318ea (Reply 29):
Obama is incapable of actually acting as a leader.

First of all, whether you like it or not, Obama is the leader of the United States.

Second of all, it takes two to tango.



volgende halte...Station Hollands Spoor
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11584 posts, RR: 15
Reply 37, posted (1 year 9 months 23 hours ago) and read 5882 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 2):
the problem is one party wants to cut defense and the other wants to cut entitlements without touching the other.

One problem I see is the cheerleaders on both sides believe the other side wants to take an axe to the "sacred cow." Meaning: the right-wing talkers believe Obama, Ried, Pelosi want to take an axe to military and liberal talkers believe Boehner (sp), McConnell, Ryan want to take an axe to MediCare and Social Security. Boehner/McConnell/Ryan actually do want to completely strip away those things. And, that is a problem.

The American people have paid into those programs for years. Now, they want to just take them away and spend, spend, spend. How about we get rid of waste, fraud and abuse from all corners of government. MediCare, Social Security, military AND raise taxes? Back to Clinton era? Don't like it? Fine. Let's go back to Eisenhower tax rates. 95% for the top 2% versus 39% for the top 2%.

And, let's not forget that something like 1000 people in this country hold as much wealth as the bottom 50% of this country. Because of tax breaks and entitlements. How many jobs in the United States have those 1000 people created because they get a million dollars a year from the government?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 52
Reply 38, posted (1 year 9 months 22 hours ago) and read 5868 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 37):

You state that both sides have problems gutting their cows, then you turn around and say how the Dems shouldn't cut what the Republicans want cut? Well, that makes you just as guilty as the Republicans. (Unless I read you incorrectly, I'm pretty tired.)

You make your argument while many Republicans argue that we can't cut defense and it will make the country unsafe (and they truly think that) so if you can't cut what you like, how do you expect the other side to cut what they like??



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinewingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2238 posts, RR: 5
Reply 39, posted (1 year 9 months 12 hours ago) and read 5839 times:

It's easy to see how the two parties get so embroiled in this pedantic nonsense. How is the Kindergarten solution not viable I wonder? 10% reduction in expenditures across the board and expiration of the temporary tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Take stock year to year on the results and adjust as necessary, and that would include expiration of the temporary tax cuts for the middle class as well.

But right now let's face it, the wealthy are doing exceedingly well, as well as they always have been over the past 50 years. The concentration of wealthy into their hands remains on its meteoric pace. The middle and lower classes on the other hand are still in a world of hurt, and so let's give them a continued reprieve for another year or two.

I guess this is just too simple for the political jihadists on both sides. I remain amazed at the concern Americans have for people that live in the Hamptons.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 40, posted (1 year 9 months 11 hours ago) and read 5834 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 35):
My preference today is to wait until January before getting serious.

That's Obama's plan apparently. He has not had the time to meet with Congressional leaders in 14 days and is planning to leave DC on December 17th for 3 weeks for Hawaii - a trip costing the taxpayers $4 million in hotel costs etc. He's just not getting the message is he?

GWB at least had the good sense to take his vacations at home in Crawford, limiting costs.

And you know that had Romney been elected, he would be meeting with Congress on a daily basis until something got hammered out.

Quoting wingman (Reply 39):
10% reduction in expenditures across the board and expiration of the temporary tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

I think the GOP would go for that. The problem is that the Dems won't. They refuse to talk about any reductions, except perhaps over 10 years - which is a promise worth a bucket of warm spit. We've been down that road before. In 1982 democrats promised $3 in spending cuts for Reagan's acceptance of every $1 in tax increases. Reagan took the deal but Dems never cut any expenses.

Forget any 10 year deals. Any deal has to be about 2013 only.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7136 posts, RR: 8
Reply 41, posted (1 year 9 months 11 hours ago) and read 5818 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 13):
You're right. But, the question really is: Why is the US government providing all these services. Under what Constitutional authority? Eliminate federal services that are more properly provided by local and state governments. Or, better yet, by the private sector. I've said it before...I don't think that I'm taxed to high. I do believe that my taxes are going to the wrong entities. I interact (on the surface) more with my local government than my state government. I interact more with my state government than the federal government (I think...see my first point). My tax distribution should reflect those interactions.

Does the above post sound like a Tea Party member or some activist pushing for State empowerment, no, to me a very reasoned post on the realities of the nation created by the constitution, which I could have said it similar in previous threads on this issue, had to add to my respected members list.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 26):
Have the Dems actually agreed on any cuts yet?

In the political parlance - presently watching Your Money on CNN - the democratic party won the last elections, Presidency, Senate and House improved positions so the mandate is to continue to spend, raise taxes on the rich and cut the military. I expect them to offer some options on how and when deductions are tabulated, when increases kick in, etc. etc. but nothing on actually cutting anything other than the military. Which I was wrong but the military is the only item for which they always have specific numbers, everything else is a cut in the speed or rate of increase, never a decrease.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 35):
My preference today is to wait until January before getting serious.

I agree 100%, it is funny how we are hearing talk about how the cliff will cause a recession, yet with all the economic analysis around no one is touting the benefit this will have on the federal deficit.
Hmmmm, during the summer debt ceiling fiasco, the deficit seemed to be important, ratings were cut as a result of no big plan on reduction, now a reduction will take place with the fiscal cliff and all we hear is silence on how this will affect the economy.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8224 posts, RR: 8
Reply 42, posted (1 year 9 months 9 hours ago) and read 5796 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 30):
The latest plan from Obama delivered this morning to Congress apparently was "All tax increases, no spending cuts at all, and a new $50 billion stimulus plan", leading to a projected $1.6 trillion deficit in 2013.

That's today's political game. What is important are the private discussions between Obama and the leaders on the House & Senate. We don't get to hear about those.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 30):
The man is out of his mind.

You wish. That was an opening position for public consumption - just like the no tax increase for Billionaires positions taken by the GOP.

Basically Obama laid out a simple reality - he's ready to wait until January. Let's let the Congress get their end of year housekeeping tasks done. Then the new Congress can get to work on all the financial issues that need to be made.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 31):
but it's up to the federal government to decide how much of my money comes back to KY. Which means the state must toe the federal line.

A lot of federal funds flow to the states based on the political negotiating in Congress. Bringing home the bacon. THen there are decisions on issues like health care. The states decide how they are going to respond to Medicaid and their decisions will impact how federal funds are handled. (It's interesting to note that conservative states refusing to participate in ObamaCare - Medicaid. That decision allows for the government to basically start a universal care program. Baby steps, but important steps. I'm surprised that the conservative governors are allowign the move from state to federal government.)

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 33):
Our way, or we scream and yell about how unreasonable you are to the Media.

As opposed to the GOP throwing in about 300 filibusters?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 33):
For 3 years running, NO BUDGET

What is the use when the GOP will simply filibuster any attempt to vote for a non-GOP budget?

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 34):
Really, I think the leaders of both parties need to sit down and work something out.

I think that there have been a lot of discussions for quite a while. The cliff isn't some big surprise that showed up after the election. Don't be surprised if all of a sudden a lot of work has been achieved - before or after the election.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 40):
He has not had the time to meet with Congressional leaders in 14 days and is planning to leave DC on December 17th for 3 weeks for Hawaii - a trip costing the taxpayers $4 million in hotel costs etc. He's just not getting the message is he?

It's the GOP that hasn't gotten the message. That was clearly shown in the election.

And I wouldn't worry about the $4 million (or what ever the costs) of a presidential trip. Even Republican Presidents have generated costs of travel. How much was spend getting W's ranch up to speed? At least the Secret Service guys can have some nice beach time when off duty. Better than the sandpit they had under W.   

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 40):
And you know that had Romney been elected, he would be meeting with Congress on a daily basis until something got hammered out.

Doubtful. The GOP leaders & a handful of top contributors would be handing him the legislation to sign and he'd take directions pretty well.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 40):
I think the GOP would go for that. The problem is that the Dems won't.

A blind 10% cut to all budgets is simply a blind, uneducated guess on what the next decade will bring. We simply don't know, as an example, what is going to be hitting us in the way of a medical crisis. Or a military crisis. We don't know what impact we will get hit with from international economics. Or how technology will change our lives, and our security.

Budgets are therefore our best projections. An educated guess, influenced by the political positions of the two parties.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 40):
Forget any 10 year deals. Any deal has to be about 2013 only.


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5515 posts, RR: 8
Reply 43, posted (1 year 9 months 6 hours ago) and read 5757 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 7):
I'm willing to see tax increase - accross the board - back to Clinton-era levels. But i vehemantly disagree with Obama's "only on the rich" approach, even though personally I would benefit from it. It is morally wrong to have the wealthy pay all the taxes and the rest enjoy all the benefits.

I tend to agree with you, though as I have said I would reintroduce the old tax rates in a staggered schedule, say every other year, to reintroduce each next lower tax tier and finally create a new 5% bracket for the "bottom 50%" (whatever that really is. Everybody needs to pay in).

In general I like this article but I do have some real disagreements with it: http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/...help-Obama-raise-taxes-on-the-rich
The one thing that annoys me is how most everyone against returning taxes to previous levels harps how the level of revenue raised won't do enough to impact the deficit in the budget, however they completely ignore the fact that as the economy improves the highest brackets will increase first and fastest and that will really impact things and that as the economy continues to improve the expenses created by those that use "welfare" and social services (unemployment, food stamps, etc) will decrease which will again really impact the annual expenses and deficit.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 35):
But there are things that can be reviewed over a few months. Start with the $1,000 per child per year socialist handout that the GOP used to win an election in the 90s. It is immediately cut in half. That will put a lot of people into a situation of paying taxes for the first time in years. We can talk about it, price it out and make a decision.

Next could be double taxing of dividends. I go with ending (again) the double taxing, but believe that the tax relief should be at the corporate level - not the individual level. Put it at the corporate level and you increase cash in companies that would be available for R&D, new plants or equipment, increasing the employee count, etc. In other words, put that tax break where it can help businesses grow. Not really rocket science IMO.

Capital gains? I believe it should simply be income. Not at special rates, but at normal income levels. Reality is that people will invest in the market when they believe they will make a profit. They will not invest if they see a loss - even if that loss is tax free. This also eliminates the problem of those in the financial sector who claim their income is not earned, but is a capital gains - so they start at the 15% tax rates and take their deductions and games from there.

And maybe we can FINALLY look at the tax free ride on Employer Nanny Care. The most effective approach is to disallow that tax free income by the individuals. But you will be able to deduct it on your "Medical Deductions". Eliminating the tax deduction by employers would cause them do drop nanny care faster than the country can get used to savings from universal coverage of core care.

Actually, maybe we need to look at the entire "cafeteria plan" tax free ride. An argument can easily be made that we can no longer afford it with our massive debt.

Are these Democrat position type things that you as a Democrat (if you are one) are willing to offer up to compromise on? It sounds more like you are just willing to "tell the other side" what they should do. The only thing that really hits the Dem's position is your comment on the child credit. What "Democrat positions" are you willing to offer up?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 40):
And you know that had Romney been elected, he would be meeting with Congress on a daily basis until something got hammered out.

Actually we don't know that, but it is a fun thing to say if it makes you feel better and imagine "just how different things would be if...". I could say lots of "could"'s if only the Republican's and Democrat's would work together well instead of play to the media and pander to hardliners, but that's not how it is right now so it is useless to pretend.

One big change I would make is to the military and their pensions. The pension would no longer be "lifetime" but rather limited to the the number of years the person was in service for (perhaps starting at 15 years instead of how it is now), with the addition of extended benefits (supported by the sale of "war bonds" to create the funding needed so it doesn't unfairly impact the general budget) if the person goes sees combat. We have a volunteer service if people do not like to pay and benefits they don;t have to join, just like with every other job right now. If people do no I would continue the VA as it is now though I understand that changes would likely be needed due to rising burden ad expense. I would also not allow the Congress to pander and continue to add to the pay increase that the armed services request (typically 1% or so has been added), the Congress could only accept or reject the request.

On the welfare side of things I would not allow increases to your welfare once you go on it (unless you are perhaps pregnant/in process of adoption). Also welfare would time limited and decrease each month after the first year. Lifetime welfare would not be allowed. And finally Social Security would no longer be able to be used for "disability" and the various other things it is burdened with nowadays, a separate mechanism and funding would have to be created to support this if desired. Oh, and I would return the SSI and other employment taxes back to their proper levels.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8224 posts, RR: 8
Reply 44, posted (1 year 9 months 4 hours ago) and read 5733 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 43):
Are these Democrat position type things that you as a Democrat (if you are one) are willing to offer up to compromise on?

Actually I consider myself an independent. Grew up in a GOP household and voted GOP for years. Then the conservatives during the Bush I years pissed me off - the Sanunu Mentality as I called it. So I've voted for Bush both time for their first term and agains them for the second term. I've also split the ticket a lot of times over the last 30 years.

The points I made are my points, not some Democrat points I read. I don't see any real value in rushing for a quick fix when we can re-look at everything in January.

In terms of the Child Credit - it's a takeoff on the Aussie's Child Endowment program. It's a socialist's program and I think it's pretty funny that the GOP embraced it.


User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3360 posts, RR: 9
Reply 45, posted (1 year 9 months ago) and read 5709 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 40):
GWB at least had the good sense to take his vacations at home in Crawford, limiting costs.

Most of the cost is protecting the POTUS and wherever he goes $4 million to support a presidents Christmas holiday doesn't matter and you know that. I am also pretty sure that the senior members of congress are just super passionate about making a deal now instead of spending the holidays with their families   .

Also most presidents have the sense not to start two wars and not pay for them   .

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 40):

I think the GOP would go for that. The problem is that the Dems won't. They refuse to talk about any reductions, except perhaps over 10 years - which is a promise worth a bucket of warm spit. We've been down that road before. In 1982 democrats promised $3 in spending cuts for Reagan's acceptance of every $1 in tax increases. Reagan took the deal but Dems never cut any expenses.

They didn't last summer, then Boehner could have rejected at the time getting 98% of what he wanted. My guess he probably took the deal at the time thinking it would cost Obama his re-election (worked out great). Now he has to look at it from the perspective that if he plays hardball he potentially loses more seats in 2014 perhaps giving the democrats control leading into 2016 or he makes a deal and he loses his job and becomes a victim of the Tea-Party.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 42):
That's today's political game. What is important are the private discussions between Obama and the leaders on the House & Senate. We don't get to hear about those.

  


The job of the POTUS is to sign off on the budget not create it. The budget should be the work of 535 members of congress but to put that burden on one man isn't fair nor realistic.

[Edited 2012-12-01 20:52:50]


Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39854 posts, RR: 74
Reply 46, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5686 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3):
So which is it? Fight Obama and get blamed for all wrongs, or let him run wild and hope we can pick up the pieces later? That is the question.

Sadly it will just have to come to that. Obama has the Senate and most of the media on his side. Fighting him will just mean gridlock and give him an excuse to blame the Republicans for the inevitable financial cliff.
It would be wise for John Boehner and the Republicans to come out and publicly announce that they're going to give President Obama 100% of everything he wants. Site that the recent election is the reason for not fighting him on this issue and just watch the disaster unfold on Obama's watch.
The lack of jobs isn't enough of a pinch for the Obama supporters to realize how bad things are. Once the government checks stop coming in is when they'll realize how bad things are. Sadly, many programs which are needed will feel the pinch as well. Another downturn in the President's 5th year in office will be very difficult to blame on Bush.
It will be very ugly and a depressing sight to see but I guess the voters will just have to learn the hard way.

Quoting tugger (Thread starter):
I want to know what policies and programs and platform planks of YOURS are you willing to cut, change, adjust, reduce, limit and otherwise compromise on?

Cut everything. I don't care. I haven't earned a US dollar in almost 4 years. I don't use any US government services since I live outside the US and the Embassy is of zero use to me.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1568 posts, RR: 1
Reply 47, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5673 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):
Military is exempt - they don't make a lot to begin with.

Why are the military exempt? It surely can't just be because they don't get paid much as a lot of people employed by the gov't don't get paid much.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 13):
The answer: I don't know, because I really don't know what's the totality of services the federal government provides me.

This is very interesting, does anybody here know exactly what benefits they receive anyway? I know I don't know exactly how I benefit from all the services.

Fred


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7136 posts, RR: 8
Reply 48, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5664 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 45):
The job of the POTUS is to sign off on the budget not create it.

Correct, it is the job of the House to create a budget, the Senate to approve and POTUS to sign off, that process has been off the rails for the last few years, somehow every single thing in every budget that the house has passed in the last few years have gotton no traction in the Senate.
Whichever side of the aisle one is on, you cannot question that the process has been abandoned, each side took a line on a couple items out of the hundreds in the budget and used those to kill the process, rather than passing a budget of the things both sides agreed on, they choose all or nothing, now we are led to believe that one side or the other will be at fault if the nation goes over the cliff. Interesting, I say it is the power of the commercial media.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 47):

This is very interesting, does anybody here know exactly what benefits they receive anyway? I know I don't know exactly how I benefit from all the services.

Simple answer, choose your party then choose the media outlet which caters to that party and follow the script.
One of the biggest items is the ability of members of the House and Senate to obtain grants of Federal tax dollars for their states, whether it be the state government, local municipalities or campaign contributors.
Everyone has their own pet project with a lot of pork thrown in for good measure. Hence the reason why some activist talk about taking funds from the locals via federal taxes, sending it to Washington and having it returned to the state via a grant to do something that persons in the state wanted to do. It is also another way to get around the no votes of the local population, horse trading in Washington will get you the money anyway.

The Federal budget is too large with too many items in it for the House and Senate not to have passed one, even if they had closed their eyes while signing, the odds are that something they both agreed on would have been done  


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39854 posts, RR: 74
Reply 49, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5661 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 48):

As Ross Perot once said; "Worshington is a pully-pull pit!"



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 52
Reply 50, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 5621 times:

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 47):
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):
Military is exempt - they don't make a lot to begin with.

Why are the military exempt? It surely can't just be because they don't get paid much as a lot of people employed by the gov't don't get paid much.

I do agree, we can't have sacred cows. I would, however, do a progressive cutting, cut the top ranks/officers more and cut the junior enlisted very little or none at all (they really don't make enough, IMO, and as the most junior officer rank in the military, I'm very satisfied with my salary... it's quite high for a 22 entry level job.)

BUT, that all being said, I believe we can cut government programs and the defense budget adequately that we don't even need to touch salaries. As I've said, I don't think there should be any sacred cows, but I don't think every ASPECT of the budget needs to be changed (cut 10% from tanks, 10% from aircraft, 10% from M-4s, 10% from salaries) I think they can give those in charge with agencies an overall X% cut and they can decide to cut, IDK, 20% from _____ and 0% from salaries, for example



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8224 posts, RR: 8
Reply 51, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5601 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 46):
It would be wise for John Boehner and the Republicans to come out and publicly announce that they're going to give President Obama 100% of everything he wants. Site that the recent election is the reason for not fighting him on this issue and just watch the disaster unfold on Obama's watch.

Sadly the Tea Party won't let the Tan Man do that. I actually believe that if Boehner and Obama were allow to sit down and work out a deal without any outside "influences" there would be a deal without too much of a problem. But there are a lot of people with their finger in the pie and that is the primary factor in blocking a deal.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 46):
Another downturn in the President's 5th year in office will be very difficult to blame on Bush.

Obama has no problems in terms of taking the blame for his programs - like ObamaCare.

At the same time Bush left this country with problems that will last for generations, regardless of how is President. The tens of thousands of wounded vets from Iraq will probably live a half a century. War widows (like my mother-in-law) after WW II will continue to be impacted by the Bush Administration for generations.

It's not hard at all for me to blame Bush for the problems that he caused.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 46):
I don't use any US government services since I live outside the US and the Embassy is of zero use to me.

That Embassy is there in case you need it. Sort of like an ER at the hospital being there in case you need it. Except for keeping the Consulate in Perth of our current address and getting a passport renewed I didn't use the local Consulate when we lived in Australia.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 47):
Why are the military exempt?

The military has different terms of "employment". Their full compensation package is different, as is their risks of injury and death.

My preference is to keep the pay & benefits the same and to reduce payments to "consultants". We also need to take a hard look at the spending on services that have traditionally ben carried out by the services themselves. The payments to Haliburton is a prime example - why overpay for food services when the army should be able to take care of themselves? Those payments were money down the drain IMO.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 47):
This is very interesting, does anybody here know exactly what benefits they receive anyway?
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 50):
I do agree, we can't have sacred cows.

We should have some sacred cows. Start with the core military. And VA and VA HealthCare is another. Social Security is another. Health care for Americans also needs to be as a primary - even if it means that private insurance companies take second place. Actually we need to take a hard look at anything that is to be cut before deciding what changes we are to make.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39854 posts, RR: 74
Reply 52, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5579 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 51):
That Embassy is there in case you need it. Sort of like an ER at the hospital being there in case you need it.

In Thailand, it's for those that don't know jack about the country they reside in. I wrote up a whole trip report about what I did during last year's flood here in Thailand. All the Embassy did was send an email telling me to stay away from the flood waters. Yep we the taxpayers are supporting a staff of 800+ to tell us expats that.  
I'm well aware of the purpose of the Embassy and they make sense in more forbidding places like say Libya where there is more hostility. Our Embassy here in Bangkok is totally useless and should be downsized to handle basic consular services.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5515 posts, RR: 8
Reply 53, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5555 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 44):
The points I made are my points, not some Democrat points I read. I don't see any real value in rushing for a quick fix when we can re-look at everything in January.

Then I mis-phrased, I shouldn't have used a party affiliation as an example.

My question is which of the policies and program that YOU as in independent support, regardless of party or position (conservative, liberal), are you willing to compromise on, have cut or changed, etc.? Of the things that that you don't support, which are YOU willing to accept and allow?

So what are you willing to compromise on?

Quoting Superfly (Reply 46):
Cut everything. I don't care. I haven't earned a US dollar in almost 4 years. I don't use any US government services since I live outside the US and the Embassy is of zero use to me.

Then why don't you renounce your citizenship since it is obviously of no use to you as you do not see yourself ever using the benefits of it the future.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 50):
As I've said, I don't think there should be any sacred cows, but I don't think every ASPECT of the budget needs to be changed (cut 10% from tanks, 10% from aircraft, 10% from M-4s, 10% from salaries) I think they can give those in charge with agencies an overall X% cut and they can decide to cut, IDK, 20% from _____ and 0% from salaries, for example

The problem is that Congress doesn't like that and would never allow that as then the military might actually cut some program (aka: jobs) in someones district and we can't have that. "If my district is gonna be hurt, yours damn well better be too!" seems to be the thinking of a lot of people sadly.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 51):
The military has different terms of "employment". Their full compensation package is different, as is their risks of injury and death.

Not really, during peacetime most service positions have no danger of death or otherwise, (heck even during "wartime" most positions don't have a threat of death other than those that are in combat and in locations at threat of attack). We have a volunteer force, if people do not like the pay and benefits then they do not have to join (and if we instituted a draft then I would be OK with amending things to account for that). As I have said above, if death/danger is a possibility (via combat, war, etc.) then sure let's extend benefits but otherwise, no.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 51):
We should have some sacred cows.

Sorry but "sacred cows" tend to be what one themselves supports (to Republican's "tax cuts" is a sacred cow, banning abortion is a scared cow), so no, no sacred cows. As I posted above, I can accept cuts to welfare programs even though it will directly affect my sister, and a change and removal of SS disability even though that would directly impact my parents, and cuts to military programs etc. and tax increases even though that will directly affect me.

It's not easy and we all need to be willing to "take a hit" because this problem will not just solve itself. Mutual cooperation and sacrifice (not trying to be dramatic but it kinda sounds like it), needs to happen and it starts with us, the citizens of the USA.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39854 posts, RR: 74
Reply 54, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5543 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 53):
Then why don't you renounce your citizenship since it is obviously of no use to you as you do not see yourself ever using the benefits of it the future.

You're the one who asked questions on what should be cut. I gave you my opinion and now you're asking me to leave the country?  
Anyhow, have a read at this and read reply #30 and 32.
U.S. Citizens Abroad And Fatca (by AirframeAS Nov 27 2012 in Non Aviation)#1



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 52
Reply 55, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5527 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 51):
We should have some sacred cows. Start with the core military.

Again, I mean we should cut defense by X% and let the military leaders decide what to cut. I'd rather not have Congress micro managing anyway.

If defense gets slashed, we can keep pay the same but reduce money to other projects.

Not really sacred cows, more like sacred body parts on said cow



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5515 posts, RR: 8
Reply 56, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5524 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 54):
You're the one who asked questions on what should be cut. I gave you my opinion and now you're asking me to leave the country?
Anyhow, have a read at this and read reply #30 and 32.

Sorry Supe', you know I like and respect you on this site but the comment you made was just a throwaway and didn't go to the heart of the question which is, of the things you value, what are you willing to compromise on? And no I don't want you to leave the country, I want people to embrace it and their citizenship participation in it.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinen318ea From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 57, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5526 times:

Quoting cws818 (Reply 36):

First of all, whether you like it or not, Obama is the leader of the United States.

Being President requires MORE than making appearances on TV shows and Demo talking points at staged Press Conferences. A LEADER would be taking part actively not getting ready to take another Hawaiian vacation.
I don't have to like anything about Obama period. This IS still an free country, for now anyway.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8224 posts, RR: 8
Reply 58, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5500 times:

When I look at cutting spending I find it is not a simple issue.

Take the Socialist GOP Hand out for having kids. It's not necessary for 70% or 80% of the families. For those close or below the poverty line it is a matter of paying the heating bills in winter, or getting kids to the doctor.

We can cut air traffic control, but that would directly related to cuts on flights, which would cut airline profits, which would cut tax revenues.

Cutting, say, funds for medical research can reduce the medical research infrastructure we have in place. Is that what we want to do.

I also believe that some government spending generates tax revenues. Road building/maintenance is a classic example. There area a lot of private companies involved and they all pay income taxes. As do their employees. Now look at other companies (small businesses through major companies) that are positively impacted by the spending of company owners and employees - made possible from the building/maintenance programs - and they pay taxes.

When it all flows down how much is returned to the federal government, state governments, local and county governments?

Then what are the financial benefits gained from having that infrastructure in place?

It may well be that cutting that work actually reduces the total tax receipts when all tax impacts are included. (Be sure to include government payments for unemployment. food stamps, Medicaid, etc. when looking at the total impact.)

So, for real cuts I would first look at the damage they would do. Cuts that increase unemployment are, IMO, cutting our nose off to spite our face.

There are some cuts that work. Cut political travel budgets in half. The weekly trips home simply cut the hours the politicians are available for work so let's make it every other weekend. If the politicians aren't willing to stay away from home every other weekend we really don't need them. Since both houses of Congress have not really done that much maybe we can have a 10% to 20% cut to their staff budgets

Cutting defense contractors is another area where we need to move. Starting with making the military self sufficient - the Army can have its own cooks. Worked in WW II so it should have worked in the ME Wars. I'm a believer in developing personnel in the military and having them do the work. You et some bright kids heading to the military academies - keep growing their skills and knowledge. Also open up some new slots at the top so they can be promoted.

On military cuts I would also stretch out deliveries of capital purchases, like the USAF tankers. Part of that cut, however, needs to be put into maintenance & training. The last thing we want to do is have cuts in training & maintenance. You also need to understand that we need to replenish a lot of material that was expended during 10 years of war. Get inventory levels topped up and then slow down purchases in the future.

Quoting n318ea (Reply 57):
Being President requires MORE than making appearances on TV shows and Demo talking points at staged Press Conferences. A LEADER would be taking part actively not getting ready to take another Hawaiian vacation.

We really don't know what either the President or leaders in Congress are doing in the background. The "background" is where we will probably find a deal - the public space is probably the last place to find one.

And, IIRC, Bush spent far more time on vacation at the ranch then Obama has in Hawaii. N=Both were able to actually work while on vacation - they certainly have the infrastructure with them to do their job. Hate the black guy as much as you want - he has been elected President twice and is our President as determined by the voters.


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5515 posts, RR: 8
Reply 59, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5482 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 58):
When I look at cutting spending I find it is not a simple issue.

Of course it's not, but that does not mean it doesn't need to be cut. The budget has expanded too much recently, for good reason, to cover those exposed by the recent economic problems, but it needs to now be reduced again and brought back in line.

So I don't expect the cuts to be easy and I also don't expect any tax increases etc. to be easy either.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 58):
Hand out for having kids. It's not necessary for 70% or 80% of the families. For those close or below the poverty line it is a matter of paying the heating bills in winter, or getting kids to the doctor.

Sorry, it should be reduced or ended across the board, if you can't afford to have kids then you shouldn't have kids. But it has been proven throughout time that everyone can always "afford" to have kids, it's just that people of different means will be able top do more or less for them.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 58):
We can cut air traffic control, but that would directly related to cuts on flights, which would cut airline profits, which would cut tax revenues.

OK, then don't cut it. For the most part I don't think people have been discussing cutting it. Also, if I remember correctly it is more self-funded than most programs.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 58):
Cutting, say, funds for medical research can reduce the medical research infrastructure we have in place. Is that what we want to do.

Perhaps, we always talk about how the cost is to high and part of that is due to excessive and duplicative infrastructure spending. However I do not think spending will be cut that much as there is money t be made in it. At out local university, well over half the funding for research is coming from the private sector and from private foundations.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 58):
I also believe that some government spending generates tax revenues. Road building/maintenance is a classic example. There area a lot of private companies involved and they all pay income taxes. As do their employees. Now look at other companies (small businesses through major companies) that are positively impacted by the spending of company owners and employees - made possible from the building/maintenance programs - and they pay taxes.

Of course it does, but the taxes collected are not the amount that is spent, it's not that circular.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 58):
When it all flows down how much is returned to the federal government, state governments, local and county governments?

Directly, not as much as is spent.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 58):
Then what are the financial benefits gained from having that infrastructure in place?

On this you are correct there is a direct benefit to the ability to create economic and other benefits but that is in combination with other forces, not just because of the spending/building/project.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 58):
It may well be that cutting that work actually reduces the total tax receipts when all tax impacts are included. (Be sure to include government payments for unemployment. food stamps, Medicaid, etc. when looking at the total impact.)

True, but it may well be that that is not that case too. The key operative word in your statement is "may", as in we don't know.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 58):
So, for real cuts I would first look at the damage they would do. Cuts that increase unemployment are, IMO, cutting our nose off to spite our face.

That is unrealistic as any cuts could reduce employment in whatever is cut. But that does not mean that employment would not otherwise increase elsewhere and offset the cut work.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 58):
There are some cuts that work. Cut political travel budgets in half. The weekly trips home simply cut the hours the politicians are available for work so let's make it every other weekend. If the politicians aren't willing to stay away from home every other weekend we really don't need them. Since both houses of Congress have not really done that much maybe we can have a 10% to 20% cut to their staff budgets

Remember the travel is intended to be for the legislators to be able to confer with their constituents. Though I am not against the idea at all really. In fact I think I would like to completely decentralize Washington and make everyone only have home offices and then rotate where they meet or have it occur online or once a month only. This would reduce the power of lobbyists and increase the voice of the local constituents and prevent and "inside the beltway" mentality from occurring.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 58):
Cutting defense contractors is another area where we need to move. Starting with making the military self sufficient - the Army can have its own cooks. Worked in WW II so it should have worked in the ME Wars. I'm a believer in developing personnel in the military and having them do the work. You et some bright kids heading to the military academies - keep growing their skills and knowledge. Also open up some new slots at the top so they can be promoted.

I agree that too much has been outsourced to private contractors which pull money out (they have to, they have to make a profit and return "value' i.e. money, to their shareholders) instead of put it all back in to create the needed product (like food service) etc.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 58):
On military cuts I would also stretch out deliveries of capital purchases, like the USAF tankers. Part of that cut, however, needs to be put into maintenance & training. The last thing we want to do is have cuts in training & maintenance. You also need to understand that we need to replenish a lot of material that was expended during 10 years of war. Get inventory levels topped up and then slow down purchases in the future.

The maintenance on existing inventory and disposal of aged inventory is a very large burden already for defense. It is necessary but a big cost.

Just some of my quick thoughts, anything can be compromised on and a lot can be done to reign in the excessive sending and improve revenues to support what is needed.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 60, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5484 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 59):
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 58):
When I look at cutting spending I find it is not a simple issue.

Of course it's not, but that does not mean it doesn't need to be cut.

Exactly.

It should be no different than when you go to the store. You have $100 in your pocket. You can't fill your basket with $150 worth of goods. You have to make do with what you have. You have to put back the magazines, the ribeyes and the wine, and stick to the essentials.

Federal spending increased 40% over the past 5 years - which is what the Dems wanted to maintain which is why they refused to consider any budgets. There is no excuse for this.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8224 posts, RR: 8
Reply 61, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5455 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 59):
The budget has expanded too much recently, for good reason, to cover those exposed by the recent economic problems, but it needs to now be reduced again and brought back in line.

As the costs of the ME Wars winds down so will the direct spending. That helps when you look at the 10 year picture.

Quoting tugger (Reply 59):
if you can't afford to have kids then you shouldn't have kids.

Doesn't work for those responsible adults who had a good job - until the Bush Economy killed it.

And it won't help for those we put out of work in the name of cutting government spending.

We need to understand that we are going to generate unemployment when we cut the budget so we need to factor in all the government costs associated with that unemployment.

Quoting tugger (Reply 59):
For the most part I don't think people have been discussing cutting it.

You hit a flat 10% cut across the board and ATC gets that cut - and the airlines then get their cuts in allowed flights. That is what happens when you cut with a butcher knife instead of a scalpel .

Quoting tugger (Reply 59):
Also, if I remember correctly it is more self-funded than most programs.

Self funding doesn't count. We have a straight 10% cut then we need a straight 10% cut. Might even get us looking at the fees we charge and see if they need to be updated to current conditions.

Quoting tugger (Reply 59):
Of course it does, but the taxes collected are not the amount that is spent, it's not that circular.

Not at the immediate level, but when you factor the downhill impact this might change.

Quoting tugger (Reply 59):
Directly, not as much as is spent.

We need to look at indirect benefits in order to avoid loosing those benefits. It is the "first do no harm" approach.

Quoting tugger (Reply 59):
That is unrealistic as any cuts could reduce employment in whatever is cut.

So let's find out the full costs (including indirect) before jumping off the "spending cliff".

Quoting tugger (Reply 59):
But that does not mean that employment would not otherwise increase elsewhere and offset the cut work.

I believe we need to recognize that cutting spending will result in unemployment in the short term. Any gains in jobs over the long term may, or may not, happen. Not a nice gamble with the current unemployment situation.

And that does bring up a question. How much of an increase in unemployment are we willing to accept from cuts in government spending? Half a million jobs? A million? Two?

Quoting tugger (Reply 59):
Remember the travel is intended to be for the legislators to be able to confer with their constituents.

Bull - they are going to raise money for their campaigns and we pay for it. Let them use Skype.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 60):
You can't fill your basket with $150 worth of goods.

Start with coupons and you can probably get $125 for $100. Or only buy on sale and that will $100 will but $150 with $25 left over.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7136 posts, RR: 8
Reply 62, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5445 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 58):
Cut political travel budgets in half. The weekly trips home simply cut the hours the politicians are available for work so let's make it every other weekend. If the politicians aren't willing to stay away from home every other weekend we really don't need them. Since both houses of Congress have not really done that much maybe we can have a 10% to 20% cut to their staff budgets

My question, if most states can have their legislators meet for a limited time for the entire year, why exactly does the House and Senate have to meet for the entire year?
How about the House and Senate going into session 3 months before the start of the budget year, once the budget is passed both houses are suspended for 6 months then meet for one month to review the initial effects and make any adjustments, then go home until the process starts all over again.
The government will still function, after all, the thousands of Federal employees are the ones ensuring that government services continue, not the legislators who pass the bills, we know that this works at the state level so it is not something that cannot work, besides, if my memory is correct, it used to be this way many many moons ago.

People tend to create work for themselves, I'm willing to bet that a fair amount of what is presently being done is to actually give the members something to do each day to "earn" their keep, usually, one gets into much waste and mischief when being idle.


User currently offlinePu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 697 posts, RR: 13
Reply 63, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5438 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 60):

Federal spending increased 40% over the past 5 years - which is what the Dems wanted to maintain which is why they refused to consider any budgets. There is no excuse for this

The "excuse" seems to be the will of the AmerIcan people to have the government take a greater role in the economy.

They saw (paid for) Bush bailout Wall Street with TARP on his way out the door and Obama came along and argued individuals desreve a bailout as well.




Pu


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 64, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5445 times:

Quoting Pu (Reply 63):
The "excuse" seems to be the will of the AmerIcan people to have the government take a greater role in the economy.

I only found a single scientific poll which asked the question: "Overall, do you feel like the federal government is trying to do too much these days, too little, or about the right amount?", and the answers were

Too Much 57%
Too Little 17%
About Right/Unsure 25%

In my search I find it remarkable why polling insitutions don't ask this question regularly, along with questions like, "Should the federal government spend more/less on (fill in what program you want)". They instead waste their time with favorability indexes which don't mean jack.

Quoting Pu (Reply 63):
They saw (paid for) Bush bailout Wall Street with TARP on his way out the door and Obama came along and argued individuals desreve a bailout as well.

Considering that TARP money has largely been repaid and that the net cost of TARP is expected to be only $40 billion, That hardly justifies another $5 or $6 trillion spent on pet projects and handouts. How about the repayment on those?

Your arguments sound like they come off of the OWS crowd.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 52
Reply 65, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5425 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 62):
How about the House and Senate going into session 3 months before the start of the budget year, once the budget is passed both houses are suspended for 6 months then meet for one month to review the initial effects and make any adjustments, then go home until the process starts all over again.
The government will still function, after all

I feel the opposite... Congress can't even do half of what they're needing to do in the time they have. I say keep them there through Christmas until they solve this mess...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinePu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 697 posts, RR: 13
Reply 66, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5411 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 64):

I only found a single scientific poll which asked the question: "Overall, do you feel like the federal government is trying to do too much these days, too little, or about the right amount?", and

I'm sure those general percentages are true in most every 1st world country. The feeling that govt is too big/too powerful is probably at this point a basic common condition of humanity in Europe and all of Europe's offpsring in the New World and South Pacific, Also, there is always that not insignificant group who think govt is not doing enough who combine with the "I don't care" group to get more govt benefits.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 64):

Considering that TARP money has largely been repaid and that the net cost of TARP is expected to be only $40 billion, That hardly justifies another $5 or $6 trillion spent on pet projects and handouts. How about the repayment on those?

Concepts rule. Not details. Not figures. Both parties use this truism.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 64):

Your arguments sound like they come off of the OWS crowd.

I watch American TV a few times a week and don't kniw what this means! (but I guess it is not a compliment!)




Pu


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7136 posts, RR: 8
Reply 67, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5412 times:

Quoting Pu (Reply 63):
The "excuse" seems to be the will of the AmerIcan people to have the government take a greater role in the economy.

They saw (paid for) Bush bailout Wall Street with TARP on his way out the door and Obama came along and argued individuals desreve a bailout as well.

Actually, the people were not in favour of TARP either under Bush or Obama, recall that Bush had his bill passed almost in the dead of night without representatives having much time to review much less debate the issue, lets not confuse the people's will and desire with the side tracking of the political process presently taking place in Washington.

The results may not have been negative with GM on solid ground and most of the money having already been re-paid but if you poll most of the people even today they are against bail outs and that seems to be across the board, democat and republican.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8224 posts, RR: 8
Reply 68, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5401 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 62):
why exactly does the House and Senate have to meet for the entire year?

They have more to do than the state politicians do.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 64):
In my search I find it remarkable why polling insitutions don't ask this question regularly,

Ask it regularly - but two questions The first based on it not impacting them and the second on it impacting them. You don't need to see the results to know what they will be.

Quoting par13del (Reply 67):
Actually, the people were not in favour of TARP either under Bush or Obama,

And they would have been far more upset if there was no TART with the attending financial consequences.

Quoting par13del (Reply 67):
The results may not have been negative with GM on solid ground

When we look back I think we will be satisfied with the results. Just like the first Chrysler bail out, which was actually a loan guarantee. The government made a very nice profit from the exercise as well as the success that result from the efforts. Lots of jobs (in terms of job years) and lots of profits sending tax revenues to DC.

Reality is that these things are strongly opposed by the purists of Capitalists, but we live in an impure world where reality is more important than theories. When the costs of reality set in most people will demand to know why the government didn't do anything to keep it from happening.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7136 posts, RR: 8
Reply 69, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5388 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 68):
They have more to do than the state politicians do.

Well when one looks at the state of the economy, dismantling of the finance rules which created the fundamentals of the GFC, massive deficits, failure to reign in waste, lack of responsible budgets, failure to address the Medicaid, Medicare and SS situations, fiscal cliff etc. more influence on the last few wars how much have they actually been doing?

Look I'm not saying that they do not have more to do, but they also have a lot more resources available to them to perform their task than local and state politicians, that is in addition to bodies like the GAO which is also available to them.
Rather than cutting their travel cost I would look at the time they spend in Washington and reduce it.
The upside in addition to cost savings is that they would spend more time getting the pulse of the people who actually vote for them versus spending more time with the folks who put up the money to influence how those person vote thus having them beholding.....

It is one place I think cost saving can be found, cutting the time the House and Senate are in session, now can we get a financial expert to estimate how much would be saved over the next 10 years 


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5515 posts, RR: 8
Reply 70, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5372 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 61):
Doesn't work for those responsible adults who had a good job - until the Bush Economy killed it.

It is most definitely not "the Bush economy" anymore. He may have started with it and made some very bad decisions that exacerbated it, but it is not "Bush's" anymore, it is very much "Obama's economy". Heck he even ran again and got elected with it, it's his.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 61):
And it won't help for those we put out of work in the name of cutting government spending.

We need to understand that we are going to generate unemployment when we cut the budget so we need to factor in all the government costs associated with that unemployment.

Actually we don't. But we have to either accept that it will happen/exist, or be ready to address it if it happens. As I said this is a thread on what you would prefer to not have to accept but are willing to accept to get things back on a functioning level.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 61):
You hit a flat 10% cut across the board and ATC gets that cut - and the airlines then get their cuts in allowed flights. That is what happens when you cut with a butcher knife instead of a scalpel .

And that is exactly what people are trying to avoid and why I have said I believe cuts need to managed rather than "automatic"

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 61):
As the costs of the ME Wars winds down so will the direct spending. That helps when you look at the 10 year picture.

They are a part of it but it is not at all enough. Not at all.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 61):
Not at the immediate level, but when you factor the downhill impact this might change.

The money paid to the people themselves? No, it is a rule of diminishing return with taxes (obviously). But the effects from what is funded, years down the line, that may have a net positive tax revenue return but that is unknown and could also occur in other ways.

Now look, I am not so dense as to not realize that every bit of money spent sooner or later ends up in someones pocket, so it isn't just :wasted" but that doesn't mean that there aren't better and more efficient ways for that money to end up in peoples pockets. I think tax policy (which is different from taxes, it is more like the loopholes in taxes) is an important tool in this, but just more government spending is not a solution (nor is continued spending at the current usurious rate).

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 61):
We need to look at indirect benefits in order to avoid loosing those benefits. It is the "first do no harm" approach.

But harm is already being done. and if you don't think overspending by 30% (one trillion dollars) per year, you are being unreasonable. I believe that revenue needs to increase by say

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 61):
So let's find out the full costs (including indirect) before jumping off the "spending cliff".

That is impossible to do. There is no way to ever completely know the costs and impacts of programs and changes but it doesn't mean you don't make the changes and work to what you know (like expected income versus planned expenses.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 61):
I believe we need to recognize that cutting spending will result in unemployment in the short term. Any gains in jobs over the long term may, or may not, happen. Not a nice gamble with the current unemployment situation.

And that does bring up a question. How much of an increase in unemployment are we willing to accept from cuts in government spending? Half a million jobs? A million? Two?

Two maybe three million... look it's ludicrous question on its face. How many jobs lost is a complete unknown and YOU also have no idea how many new jobs may be created as well You are operating out of fear of jobs being lost, a great man man once made an excellent observation about fear...

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 61):
Bull - they are going to raise money for their campaigns and we pay for it. Let them use Skype.

I don't disagree, I was just pointing out its intent which is/was a good reason. As I said, let them stay in their home districts and conduct most discussions and votes via remote means and only have a have times a year that they all have to get together. That would put a huge dent in lobbyists power as they would have to set up shop in 50 states and also contend with a more powerful local voice as the citizens are right there and can more easily make themselves heard.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 61):
Start with coupons and you can probably get $125 for $100. Or only buy on sale and that will $100 will but $150 with $25 left over.

OK Ken, so you are saying that the person shipping should make cuts and make concession and accept the deals (coupons) the private sector is offering. I can support that. You still only have have the $100 and not the $150, you are bargaining and COMPROMISING to get the "value" you otherwise want.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39854 posts, RR: 74
Reply 71, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5363 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 56):
Sorry Supe', you know I like and respect you on this site but the comment you made was just a throwaway and didn't go to the heart of the question which is, of the things you value, what are you willing to compromise on? And no I don't want you to leave the country, I want people to embrace it and their citizenship participation in it.

Ok, I say gut the entire E.P.A.
Get rid of Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs
Get rid of Under Secretary for Political Affairs
Get rid of Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs
Get rid of Permanent Diplomatic Missions
Get rid of Quasi-Official Agencies
Get rid of Office of Cybersecurity and Communications
Get rid of Office of International Affairs
Get rid of Office of Strategic Plans
Get rid of the TSA
Get rid of Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Get rid of Office of the General Counsel
Get rid of Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities
Get rid of Office of Insular Affairs
Get rid of Asset Forfeiture Program
Get rid of Civil Division
Get rid of the Drug Enforcement Administration
Get rid of Environment and Natural Resources Division
Get rid of Executive Office for United States Trustees
Get rid of Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management
Get rid of Office of Intergovernmental and Public Liaison
Get rid of Community Capacity Development Office
Get rid of Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Get rid of Office of Legal Policy
Get rid of Office of the Pardon Attorney
Get rid of Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking
Get rid of Office on Violence Against Women
Get rid of Professional Responsibility Advisory Office
Get rid of Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships (DOL)
Get rid of Women's Bureau
Get rid of Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
Get rid of Office of Foreign Missions
Get rid of Bureau of African Affairs
Get rid of Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs
Get rid of Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs
Get rid of Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs
Get rid of Bureau of International Organization Affairs
Get rid of Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs
Get rid of Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs
Get rid of Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs
Get rid of Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs
Get rid of Office of the Historian
Get rid of United States Mission to International Organizations in Vienna
Get rid of United States Mission to the European Union
Get rid of United States Mission to the Organization of American States
Get rid of United States Mission to the United Nations
Get rid of United States Mission to the UN Agencies in Rome
Get rid of United States Mission to the United Nations Office and Other International Organizations in Geneva
Get rid of United States Observer Mission to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
Get rid of Bureau of the Public Debt (obviously this department isn't working out)
Get rid of Office of Financial Stability (obviously this department isn't working out either)
Get rid of Election Assistance Commission
Get rid of Institute of Museum and Library Services
Get rid of Inter-American Foundation
Get rid of United States Permanent Mission to the United Nations Environment Program and the United Nations Human Settlements Programme
Get rid of ALL FOREIGN AID! ! !
Kick out the U.N. and have nothing to do with them.

There are others I'd like to get rid of but I don't have time to list them all. Of the remaining departments, downsize all of them except the military. It's a dangerous would out there and we can't rely on France to be a leading military force and we can't trust China or Russia to be the world's policeman either.

Quoting n318ea (Reply 57):
Being President requires MORE than making appearances on TV shows and Demo talking points at staged Press Conferences. A LEADER would be taking part actively not getting ready to take another Hawaiian vacation.
I don't have to like anything about Obama period. This IS still an free country, for now anyway.

  

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 64):
Too Much 57%
Too Little 17%
About Right/Unsure 25%

No, it should be 10% and gut as many government programs as possible.

[Edited 2012-12-03 00:11:10]


Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 72, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 5315 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 70):
It is most definitely not "the Bush economy" anymore. He may have started with it and made some very bad decisions that exacerbated it, but it is not "Bush's" anymore, it is very much "Obama's economy". Heck he even ran again and got elected with it, it's his.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4588 posts, RR: 2
Reply 73, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5304 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 72):

Cute picture, but the drivers in that car are Boehner and Ryan.


The ball is in the GOP court. They can either negotiate with the white house, and for the most part take what is given, or they can be blamed for allowing all tax cuts to expire and face the ire of the population which has people that trully understand that spending cuts must be met with Revenue increases while the economy is improving.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5515 posts, RR: 8
Reply 74, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5302 times:

Quoting Pu (Reply 63):

The "excuse" seems to be the will of the AmerIcan people to have the government take a greater role in the economy.

They saw (paid for) Bush bailout Wall Street with TARP on his way out the door and Obama came along and argued individuals desreve a bailout as well.

Yeah, well "a greater government role" is very different form overspend and creating ridiculous debt each and every year. Do what you can afford and pay for what you do. We have reached that point where we have to climb down from a dangerous spot, cut back, increase revenue and regain a semblance of balance.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 64):

I only found a single scientific poll which asked the question: "Overall, do you feel like the federal government is trying to do too much these days, too little, or about the right amount?", and the answers were

Too Much 57%
Too Little 17%
About Right/Unsure 25%

I would agree with that, especially now.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 71):
Get rid of

  
I gotta agree, there are way too many of those Bureaus, Agencies, Offices, Divisions etc. I would also limit the amount of staff and people working for/under legislators to something like 20 TOTAL (that includes contracted personnel, and home district support staff as well as the Washington group. ) As Part13del stated above:
Quoting par13del (Reply 62):
People tend to create work for themselves, I'm willing to bet that a fair amount of what is presently being done is to actually give the members something to do each day to "earn" their keep, usually, one gets into much waste and mischief when being idle.

What do you think Ken, are you willing to accept an increase in unemployment in the Washington Suburbs?  
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 72):

Cool picture Bro'. And if Romney had won, it would be pictures like this:

(that would be Pres. Romney holding the sign which would say "Believe in America" and the Roadrunner would be Obama).


Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 52
Reply 75, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5302 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 73):
The ball is in the GOP court.

Actually, I disagree. You've probably seen how strongly I've been criticizing the GOP lately, but I've actually seen quite a few Republicans (important, high ranking ones too) show that they are [finally] willing to compromise. But now it seems like the Democrats aren't willing to compromise, are being vague, or are "promising cuts in the future." They know they can go off the cliff and get most of what they want.

I think the ball is in the Democrats' court, and as much as they (rightfully) whined about the GOP being stubborn, I hope they don't become stubborn themselves



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4588 posts, RR: 2
Reply 76, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5302 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 75):
Actually, I disagree. You've probably seen how strongly I've been criticizing the GOP lately, but I've actually seen quite a few Republicans (important, high ranking ones too) show that they are [finally] willing to compromise. But now it seems like the Democrats aren't willing to compromise, are being vague, or are "promising cuts in the future." They know they can go off the cliff and get most of what they want.

Show me vague?

Obama and Geitner have layed out where they want to be. The GOP would rather fall on a sword and cause pain and suffering for all, than give in and negotiate,



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5515 posts, RR: 8
Reply 77, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5301 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 73):
The ball is in the GOP court. They can either negotiate with the white house, and for the most part take what is given, or they can be blamed for allowing all tax cuts to expire and face the ire of the population which has people that trully understand that spending cuts must be met with Revenue increases while the economy is improving.

I am surprised that the Republican's have not presented something yet, but I am certain it is because they are terrified of the "taxes" issue and do not in any way want to be associated with raising taxes and are trying to run from it. You know they will be attacked for it in the future if they do agree or god forbid propose any rise in tax revenue. Grover Norquist is a bad thing that has happened in the Republican party. It is fine to say "no new taxes" but when taxes have already been cut and you are now prevented from fixing the damage that is being done it is not right. I don't now why anyone supports his pledge beyond simple minded morons. I know the purpose of Mr. Norquist pledge, to continually reduce the federal power to the point of irrelevance, but it is not what makes a strong nation, in fact just the opposite occurs, it is a limited and isolationists view (and in isolationism the military much smaller and less powerful).

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 75):
I think the ball is in the Democrats' court, and as much as they (rightfully) whined about the GOP being stubborn, I hope they don't become stubborn themselves

But the Democrats have presented "something". I don't agree with it but what has been the Republican counter to it? The hard part for the Republican's is figuring out some way to increase tax revenue and they are dragging their heels as much as they can to not do it. Even Dreadnought (don't take that the wrong way Dread   ) accepts that this is something that needs to happens, but the party (not just members in the party but the party as a whole) has not had the guts to step forward and state such.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4588 posts, RR: 2
Reply 78, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5292 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 77):
I am surprised that the Republican's have not presented something yet, but I am certain it is because they are terrified of the "taxes" issue and do not in any way want to be associated with raising taxes and are trying to run from it. You know they will be attacked for it in the future if they do agree or god forbid propose any rise in tax revenue. Grover Norquist is a bad thing that has happened in the Republican party. It is fine to say "no new taxes" but when taxes have already been cut and you are now prevented from fixing the damage that is being done it is not right. I don't now why anyone supports his pledge beyond simple minded morons. I know the purpose of Mr. Norquist pledge, to continually reduce the federal power to the point of irrelevance, but it is not what makes a strong nation, in fact just the opposite occurs, it is a limited and isolationists view (and in isolationism the military much smaller and less powerful).
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/02/politi.../fiscal-cliff/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Norquist has a dictator lile presense over the GOP, and it is a bad thing. As the article above shows, the GOP is going to set itself up badly for the whiplash bill that is going to come from the Sentate if they fail to start negotiating a bill in the house.

Quoting tugger (Reply 77):

But the Democrats have presented "something". I don't agree with it but what has been the Republican counter to it?

the GOP is spending too much time whining in the press. And quite honestly their biggest complaint about the wealthy tax cuts is not something that 60+% of the US wants to hear.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 52
Reply 79, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5287 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 76):
Quoting tugger (Reply 77):

Could be wrong, but I was under the strong impression that entitlement cuts are not being laid out by the President. I've heard something about raise taxes now, cut later (which is sketchy.)

Don't claim to know everything, so if I'm wrong, please correct me.

Does anyone have a link to the Democrats' plan? Is this plan just as ridiculous as the ones the GOP made in the past (the bills that have a 0% chance of being agreed upon by the other side?)

It enraged me to know end when the GOP would send a bill to the Senate that was ridiculously one sided and then complained that the Democrats shot everything down. I'd hate to see the same thing happen in reverse. Again, sorry if I'm incorrect



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5515 posts, RR: 8
Reply 80, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5281 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 79):
Could be wrong, but I was under the strong impression that entitlement cuts are not being laid out by the President. I've heard something about raise taxes now, cut later (which is sketchy.)

You are not incorrect per se, the Dem's plan has no real cuts and really only increases taxes (to "the wealthy). I do not agree with the plan at all, but I would like to see the Republican's say "OK, your plan sucks, here is what we propose:...). But that would lead to negotiations where a tax increase will take place and they are terrified of that (at least that is what I think).

Tugg

[Edited 2012-12-03 09:31:14]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39854 posts, RR: 74
Reply 81, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5280 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 72):

Here is a more appropriate photo.



Quoting tugger (Reply 74):
What do you think Ken, are you willing to accept an increase in unemployment in the Washington Suburbs?

Since they have so much skill and expertise working in government, they should easily be able to find work in the private sector.......   



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4588 posts, RR: 2
Reply 82, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5276 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 79):

Could be wrong, but I was under the strong impression that entitlement cuts are not being laid out by the President. I've heard something about raise taxes now, cut later (which is sketchy.)

Those are items to be negotiated. However the GOP has laid out a line in the sand about the tax cuts for the wealthy. They aren't willing to move the line towards the democrats, even though their inaction triggers the automatic tax increase for everyone.
This whole situation reminds me of the Healthcare negotiation. The GOP is deciding to be absolutely stone faced and unmoved by the fact that they don't have the majority. Their inaction and unwillingness to compromise will leave the final bills in a worse state than if they engage and have some meaningful debates and counter arguments.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4588 posts, RR: 2
Reply 83, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5273 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 81):
Here is a more appropriate photo.

And as everyone can see, the most brilliant minds in the GOP are busy drawing pictures of what they think is happening instead of writing bills and debating for the best interests of the country.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 52
Reply 84, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5275 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 80):
You are not incorrect per se, the Dem's plan has no real cuts and really only increases taxes

Well, this is what I mean. The GOP's plan, until recently, was NO tax increases, only spending cuts (to "left" programs.) Now the Democrats' plan is ONLY tax increases. If it were up to me, I wouldn't want to see tax increases, but I think the small harm of taxing the top 1-2% more is outweighed by our much needed spending cuts.

We NEED spending cuts. If we need to raise taxes on the wealthy a little bit, well, that's compromise.

And to those wondering, it's not that I feel bad for Bill Gates and his money, my big concern is with small business owners and the people that will get hit by the taxes who are struggling



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 52
Reply 85, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5262 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 82):
However the GOP has laid out a line in the sand about the tax cuts for the wealthy.

   Although I'm not up to speed 100% on these negotiations, I know for a fact I've seen a bunch of Republicans talk about budging on the tax issue. I also thought Boehner was on board, but I've seen at least a few Republican congressmen on board with tax increases with my own eyes



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5515 posts, RR: 8
Reply 86, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5263 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 81):
Here is a more appropriate photo.

Actually this is a more appropriate picture:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 84):
We NEED spending cuts. If we need to raise taxes on the wealthy a little bit, well, that's compromise.

  
Agreed! Now if the politician's could just get their act together (yeah right). I would like to see the Republican's put the Dem's back on their heels by responding with "All right, so the highest rate "resets", and the following items are cut (see Supe's list or other spending programs inserted)."

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 84):
And to those wondering, it's not that I feel bad for Bill Gates and his money, my big concern is with small business owners and the people that will get hit by the taxes who are struggling

That's where my comment on "tax policy" (aka loopholes) is important. I would allow a business owner a direct write off of "X" amount (the entire cost or some significant portion thereof) for every directly employed legal resident/citizen. Everyone seems to so damned down on exemptions/loopholes but I think they are key to allowing people to actually manage their own money and still have the government and taxes benefit the economy.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4588 posts, RR: 2
Reply 87, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5262 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 85):
Although I'm not up to speed 100% on these negotiations, I know for a fact I've seen a bunch of Republicans talk about budging on the tax issue. I also thought Boehner was on board, but I've seen at least a few Republican congressmen on board with tax increases with my own eyes

A few is not a majority when the speaker of the house is still sitting on a Sunday morning talk show complaining about it.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 52
Reply 88, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5254 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 87):
A few is not a majority when the speaker of the house is still sitting on a Sunday morning talk show complaining about it.

I just now watched a video where Boehner said they'd be willing to provide more revenue in exchange for budget cuts. The GOP hasn't been the party of angels, but I'm actually seeing them willing to compromise, and it doesn't seem like the Democrats are very keen on cutting spending (aside from defense. Yes, defense needs to be cut, but we've got to cut more than that, even "democrat" programs.)

I don't have numbers on me, but I'd wager that it's physically impossible to tax our way out of this mess. Cutting our way out of this mess may be a little harsh, so logically, why can't we see real spending cuts while we rate the top tax rates? Yes, grandpa may end up having to work until 70 instead of 65. I'm not for blanket cuts either... for example, we should not cut military salaries by 10%, Army funding by 10%, AF funding by 10%, etc. I'm for broad cuts, like 10% of defense. If they want to keep the salaries in tact but cut the overall budget for the AF by 15%, that would make more sense to me.

So I think "entitlements" should be cut by X%. If they go further and decide to raise the SS retirement age and not cut SS benefits, bam, you achieved the desired cut, if that makes any sense.

Kinda got sidetracked, but bottom line, I'm not convinced that the GOP is being adamant against tax cuts. I'm seeing them sway towards tax cuts and see no proof to the contrary (minus the congressmen/women that won't, I'm sure that not ALL congressmen/women will agree to anything.)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5515 posts, RR: 8
Reply 89, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5249 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 88):
I don't have numbers on me, but I'd wager that it's physically impossible to tax our way out of this mess. Cutting our way out of this mess may be a little harsh, so logically, why can't we see real spending cuts while we rate the top tax rates? Yes, grandpa may end up having to work until 70 instead of 65. I'm not for blanket cuts either... for example, we should not cut military salaries by 10%, Army funding by 10%, AF funding by 10%, etc. I'm for broad cuts, like 10% of defense. If they want to keep the salaries in tact but cut the overall budget for the AF by 15%, that would make more sense to me.

Well you are making WAY too much sense! I agree with you (again) and I see that I failed to actually complete what I was intending to write further up the thread. In general I think that the ratio should be something like 30% revenue increase and 50% cut in services. Yes I know those number don't solve the entire problem but think they will add up in a couple of years and exceed the "100%" level after that to allow us to begin to pay down the debt. Services will reduce naturally as the economy improves and tax revenue will significantly increase if the economy improves.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 88):
So I think "entitlements" should be cut by X%. If they go further and decide to raise the SS retirement age and not cut SS benefits, bam, you achieved the desired cut, if that makes any sense.

I would also raise the SS contribution by some amount to account for the increased draw it now sees (from the boomers retiring to disability).

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 52
Reply 90, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5240 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 89):
I would also raise the SS contribution by some amount to account for the increased draw it now sees (from the boomers retiring to disability).

I'm no expert on SS, but I'm sure there are some "cuts" (or at least modifications to it) that may hurt just a little bit but won't put grandma and grandpa on the street. I can see why many politicians see it as a sacred cow since it is the lifeline for so many. But again, like raising the age you draw benefits or as you said, increasing the contribution a bit won't kill anyone (literally) and may be inconvenient, but with our deficit, we're gonna have to accept that we need to be inconvenienced.

Taxes, for me (and it sounds like you agree) I generally want to keep low, but I'm for modest increases as long as they don't hurt the economy. I do believe some of what the GOP says... I think raising them can hurt the economy. Yet I believe the Democrats when they say people like Mitt Romney make a ton of money and won't be affected. We need to analyze what tax increases will hurt and what won't. Also, I'm not too keen of running our economy mostly off the hard work of millionaires but for the time being, we are in a tough situation and I think this is an issue we need to compromise on



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39854 posts, RR: 74
Reply 91, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5247 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 83):
And as everyone can see, the most brilliant minds in the GOP are busy drawing pictures of what they think is happening instead of writing bills and debating for the best interests of the country.

Yep. Not a single cartoonist that supports Obama and the Democrats.  
Quoting tugger (Reply 86):
Actually this is a more appropriate picture:

That is certainly what's needed but I haven't seen that motivation or desire from our 'leader'.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8488 posts, RR: 2
Reply 92, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5232 times:

I'm willing to pay high taxes and get no government benefits ever, including Social Security (which I certainly don't expect to collect).

But I don't want to feel like a slave while I do it. For example, to all the people who are in $10 trillion of under-funded pensions... sorry. I am not your slave. You can go ahead and pay your bills just like me. I am not a second class citizen. For programs that are unsustainable, let those programs collapse and die.

There is a point where I will just leave the country if it doesn't make a convincing value proposition anymore.

[Edited 2012-12-03 11:25:49]

User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4588 posts, RR: 2
Reply 93, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5225 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 90):

Taxes, for me (and it sounds like you agree) I generally want to keep low, but I'm for modest increases as long as they don't hurt the economy. I do believe some of what the GOP says... I think raising them can hurt the economy. Yet I believe the Democrats when they say people like Mitt Romney make a ton of money and won't be affected. We need to analyze what tax increases will hurt and what won't. Also, I'm not too keen of running our economy mostly off the hard work of millionaires but for the time being, we are in a tough situation and I think this is an issue we need to compromise on

The issue here is that taxes do need to go up, and spending needs to go down. Everyone is pretending the GOP has a leveraged hand that nothing changes in terms of taxes and spending if they fail to act. However the opposite is the truth. Everyone;s taxes WILL go up inf the GOP fails to act and negotiate. The spending cuts they desire don't have time for a compromise, as gues what. Should we hit the fiscal cliff without the GOP doing squat, a crapload of spending cuts kick in.

The President and Senate are looking to work with the GOP to reign in some of the tax increases and limit the spending cuts, so as not to harm certain very important budget items.
The GOP is negotiating with a water pistol in a forest fire.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 52
Reply 94, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5213 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 93):
if the GOP fails to act

But I do see them acting, have you not? Going against this tax pledge thing is like blasphemy to the GOP yet we are seeing the once stubborn GOP break ranks and say they are willing to raise taxes. How is this the GOP's fault only? You keep saying this but I'm seeing the contrary

Quoting casinterest (Reply 93):
The President and Senate are looking to work with the GOP to reign in some of the tax increases and limit the spending cuts, so as not to harm certain very important budget items.

Are they now? I hear the Democrats' proposal adds more spending than revenue raised. How is that a compromise?


I'm trying to stay as neutral as possible, and what I see is the exact opposite situation. The same politicians and posters on this site that were criticizing the GOP and that wanted negotiations are now the ones sending the ridiculous proposals that have no chance of getting passed. Instead of the GOP holding America hostage, I see the Democrats using this fiscal cliff dilemma to their advantage.

I have no agenda here, I've got no "side" or loyalties. When the GOP was screwing up I was jumping in their business but now, I can honestly say I'm starting to see the Democrats' shenanigans...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4588 posts, RR: 2
Reply 95, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5209 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 94):

Are they now? I hear the Democrats' proposal adds more spending than revenue raised. How is that a compromise?

It's all heresay until the GOP comes in an works on the Tax Revenue. Because at this point, with no action, We get tax increases and spending cuts up the whazoo.





Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10893 posts, RR: 37
Reply 96, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5203 times:

As Americans face a fiscal cliff, the Obamas make do with 54 Christmas trees

Amazing how a reelection can reshape an incumbent's thinking about many things. Now safely ensconced in the White House for 49 more months, the Obamas have decorated the place with 54 Christmas trees this year.
Even allowing for the usual Washington excesses with taxpayer money, that's a whole grove of Christmas trees.
"We have 54 trees in the White House," an excited Michelle Obama proudly told visitors the other day. "54! That’s a lot of trees."

http://news.investors.com/politics-a...s-own-tree-grove.htm#ixzz2E0zGRJTV

54 trees?

Oh the poor dears. I'm glad they'll be in Hawaii for the season so they won't have to trip over all those wires for the lights.

Bless their little hearts.

 



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 52
Reply 97, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5206 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 95):
It's all heresay until the GOP comes in an works on the Tax Revenue.

Then it is also hearsay that the GOP is NOT negotiating, no? The fact that GOP congressmen/women are willing to raise taxes is a good sign, the best sign for compromise we've seen in years. I just hope the Democrats bring good cuts to the table as well. This mess is both sides' fault, you can look at the deficit and see that a lot needs to change, not a couple of cuts, not a tiny bit of extra revenue, etc



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4588 posts, RR: 2
Reply 98, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5199 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 97):
This mess is both sides' fault, you can look at the deficit and see that a lot needs to change, not a couple of cuts, not a tiny bit of extra revenue, etc

Correct, but if the GOP is staunchly against raising revenue while the economy is improving, what tool will they ever have in the future when the econonmy is getting worse?



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 99, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5197 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 98):
Correct, but if the GOP is staunchly against raising revenue while the economy is improving, what tool will they ever have in the future when the econonmy is getting worse?

Here are a few facts:
- GOP has expressed willingness to discuss increased taxation
- Democrats have refused to express any willingness whatsoever to discuss spending cuts, indeed want new spending increases and the permanent elimination of the debt ceiling.
- Democratic mouthpieces continue to blame GOP for not wanting to negotiate.

What's wrong with this picture? Or does "negotiate" in the Liberal Dictionary mean "roll over and surrender"?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4588 posts, RR: 2
Reply 100, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5184 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 99):
Here are a few facts:
- GOP has expressed willingness to discuss increased taxation

The GOP has not. Individual congressman have.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 99):
Democrats have refused to express any willingness whatsoever to discuss spending cuts, indeed want new spending increases and the permanent elimination of the debt ceiling.

Sources. I think with the GOP incompetance though, we do need an unlimited debt ceilin, they think we can cut spending to get to profitability since ther tax cuts sure didn't work. They live in a land of voodoo math.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 99):
- Democratic mouthpieces continue to blame GOP for not wanting to negotiate.

Umm Words like Flabberghasted indicate the GOP does not understand where it stands. And is extremely disturbing coming from the speaker of house.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 99):
What's wrong with this picture? Or does "negotiate" in the Liberal Dictionary mean "roll over and surrender"?

Roll over and surrender vs certain anhilation is a philosophical discussion point, and the fact that the GOP willfully ignores polls and the people's preferences , although not surprising in light of the recent election, is more concerning.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7136 posts, RR: 8
Reply 101, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5173 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 77):
I am surprised that the Republican's have not presented something yet, but I am certain it is because they are terrified of the "taxes" issue and do not in any way want to be associated with raising taxes and are trying to run from it.

Well, as we know the budget has to come from the House, in the last 3 years, everything that they have presented has been dead before a debate has commenced, so how are they to proceed?
I'm guessing that what they want to do is to present a budget which includes the tax increases that the dems want along with the spending cuts that the repubs want, then have a vote on it which will pass and then go to the senate. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the dems will commit to any spending cuts ahead of time that can be put into the budget document, after all, they just won the election and have the peoples mandate.
So I think the GOP are on their own here, create a budget with tax increases that their members will accept, spending cuts - not decreases in levels of increase spending - and throw it out on the floor. Like it or not, they were also elected by the people and if they put their plan on the floor, the people will have the chance to look at it and make a determination of whether they are serious or not, which has nothing to do with whether the dems willplay ball.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 78):
Norquist has a dictator lile presense over the GOP, and it is a bad thing. As the article above shows, the GOP is going to set itself up badly for the whiplash bill that is going to come from the Sentate if they fail to start negotiating a bill in the house.

So what is in it for the republicans, they have already been told that they will not win re-election by the people or Grover so..........


User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4588 posts, RR: 2
Reply 102, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5168 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 101):
So what is in it for the republicans, they have already been told that they will not win re-election by the people or Grover so..........

Not much if they are only in it for themselves and the wealthy.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8488 posts, RR: 2
Reply 103, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5169 times:

Basically, the 875 lb man needs to stop eating 6 chickens and 20 lbs of ground beef every day. He needs to see a doctor and change the way he does business. More of the same isn't a good idea. He wants to buy a gun to force people to cook for him. I am against that. This isn't going to be pretty, but the fat man has become a problem for the whole town. We all have to realize the government is not in a tenable position... not even close.

User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 52
Reply 104, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5160 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 98):
Correct, but if the GOP is staunchly against raising revenue while the economy is improving, what tool will they ever have in the future when the econonmy is getting worse?

They are not.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 100):
The GOP has not. Individual congressman have.

I think Boehner is a pretty significant congressman, don't you think?

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The GOP, in my eyes, is making steps towards compromise. That doesn't mean they should roll over and accept whatever bill comes at them, and that doesn't mean the Democrats aren't sending bills that are too friendly for their side. We shall see



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8224 posts, RR: 8
Reply 105, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5144 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 70):
It is most definitely not "the Bush economy" anymore.

It's a combination economy. We still have a lot of long term problems from the Bush/Cheney Administration. That Great Recession is a generational problem that will negatively impact us for years to come. Especially in the area of employment. When you see 750,000 jobs a MONTH disappear it is foolish to believe that all those jobs can be recovered along with a normal growth of new jobs.

Quoting tugger (Reply 70):
but we have to either accept that it will happen/exist, or be ready to address it if it happens

We have been struggling to recover jobs lost from the Bush/Cheney Jobs Wipe Out, as well as working to grow jobs for expanding worker populations. Now you want to add more jobs to the Jobs Wipe Out pile. Maybe we need to keep working to recover from the Dark Years of Bush before intentionally tossing more jobs on the pile.

Quoting tugger (Reply 70):
And that is exactly what people are trying to avoid and why I have said I believe cuts need to managed rather than "automatic"

I used the term "butcher knife" instead of "axe" to accommodate a "managed approach". You still have a lot battles under a managed cut. Start with the political pulling for money in states/districts. Then add in all the lobbyists. You even might include the voters from time to time (but not too often).

You are not going to get down to the precision of a scalpel in the political environment that we have.

Quoting tugger (Reply 70):
They are a part of it but it is not at all enough.

It is a noticeable chunk for the next 10 years as we adjust for the elimination of the costs of war. As those costs go down the VA costs will obviously go up, but not as much. Maybe we need to look at the military that Clinton and General/Secretary Powell worked out before Powell's term as Chairman of the JCS ended.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 71):
Ok, I say gut the entire E.P.A.
No EPA Here.


Quoting Superfly (Reply 71):
Get rid of the TSA

My preference is to avoid another 9/11 if possible. My family and I fly enough to support the TSA.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 71):
Get rid of Asset Forfeiture Program

Seems like that one would bring in cash. Selling seized property sends cash to the Treasury.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 71):
Get rid of Office of the Pardon Attorney

And then add money to build more prisons. (The women prisons in Oklahoma are FULL. When a new one goes in an existing prisoner needs to go out the door.) When you delay pardons because of administrative slowdowns you simpluy add to the costs of keeping prisoners locked up.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 92):
You can go ahead and pay your bills just like me.

We did all our working lives and we are still paying them. You seem to be the one who wants to avoid paying like generations before you.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 92):
For programs that are unsustainable, let those programs collapse and die.

Might want to wait until all who invested in them die off. Or is the Madoff approach more to your liking?

Quoting Flighty (Reply 92):
There is a point where I will just leave the country if it doesn't make a convincing value proposition anymore.

Reality is that no one outside of your family will miss you. And for every one who leaves the country there will be thousands who are waiting to home.

BTW, take a hard look at where you go. A lot of countries that would be very desirable to live in are higher in overall taxes than the US.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 96):
As Americans face a fiscal cliff, the Obamas make do with 54 Christmas trees

And how many are in the public areas? Actually, how does that compare to the number that Bush I or II have?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 99):
- GOP has expressed willingness to discuss increased taxation

And the GOP has delivered their own proposal. Ir:

- Protects the wealthy (obviously)
- Screws the elderly (obviously)
- Screws the sick (obviously)

        

Maybe we can work it out in January.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7136 posts, RR: 8
Reply 106, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5130 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 102):
Not much if they are only in it for themselves and the wealthy.

Which you are already telling them is what they are doing, so why exactly is anyone supposed to be optimistic that the GOP will do anything and that the ball is in their court? We are basically telling them that they are gone regardless of what they do so they may as well go down fighting for what they believe.

I suspect it is not the way you make it sound, but based on the way it is stated they are in a d**** if you do d**** if you don't, not a good position for them to be in if they are needed to move the country forward.


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4209 posts, RR: 1
Reply 107, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5130 times:

As a Canadian living in the US, I really believe that the there is no quick fix to the fiscal crunch. What needs to happen is there needs to be a way of giving people an opportunity to increase their wealth without increasing their debt. The US needs to find a way to have more money without increasing their debt load. Once the populace has their debt level under control they must spend their money wisely to expand the economy. The biggest barrier to escaping the financial crisis is the debt levels in the US of both citizens and their respective governments.


Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3360 posts, RR: 9
Reply 108, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5127 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 71):
It's a dangerous would out there and we can't rely on France to be a leading military force and we can't trust China or Russia to be the world's policeman either.

Some points on this.

- The US has a military that is bigger than the next 7 nations combined.
- It is a huge portion of federal spending and there is bureaucracy and inefficiency there as well.
- It is designed for a 20th century war and 21st century war is going to take place in cyberspace and by rogue groups such as Al-Qaeda. No country especially China and Russia is going to start a conventional war with the United States. What they will do his hack into the CIA and obtain our intelligence or cripple the US economy by hacking the power grid.
- Focus on a more tactical approach to warfare such as Seal Team 6, get real on cyber warfare and getting intelligence.
- This is cheaper than building planes like the F22 and F35 which haven't seen combat ever.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 88):
I don't have numbers on me, but I'd wager that it's physically impossible to tax our way out of this mess. Cutting our way out of this mess may be a little harsh, so logically, why can't we see real spending cuts while we rate the top tax rates? Yes, grandpa may end up having to work until 70 instead of 65.

No you can't, they key is growth to get out of this situation.

If you cut too much there are more people out of work and it will be more than government workers who will be. They spend money too and if they don't have money to spend then the private sector industries have to cut back as well.

Also if you tax too much people have less discretionary income and the same thing happens.

The US economy requires people to spend and with the middle and working class squeezed (which the biggest spending force that made America) what it is the government is starved of revenue.

I would reckon that the spending habits of the rich have remained constant in the last 4 years and they will jump to invest if they see growth and a higher chance of getting their money back.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4588 posts, RR: 2
Reply 109, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5119 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 104):
I think Boehner is a pretty significant congressman, don't you think?

He is still towing the tax cuts line of not ending it for the wealthy. He is significant, but apparently not making his voice heard over that Norquist mouthpiece.

As evidenced by this

http://www.speaker.gov/sites/speaker.../documents/letter_to_wh_121203.pdf

They are still towing the Paul Ryan /Mitt Romney magical math revenue plan.

Quoting par13del (Reply 106):
I suspect it is not the way you make it sound, but based on the way it is stated they are in a d**** if you do d**** if you don't, not a good position for them to be in if they are needed to move the country forward.

The GOP remains ignorant of what is and has occurred. Mathmatically and Politically.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8488 posts, RR: 2
Reply 110, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 5107 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 105):
BTW, take a hard look at where you go. A lot of countries that would be very desirable to live in are higher in overall taxes than the US.

Although we surely won't agree about how my generation is suffering under at the grasping hands of baby boomers, let me clarify one thing. I am willing to pay high taxes. But, I am not willing to endure a total apocalypse, total shame and shambles in about 10-11 years. Baby boomers will moan from their rest homes. I'll be blamed. Which is horse manure. The baby boomers are not engineering a safe or stable society. They're just taking in their youths; taking during their careers and want to take during their retirement, while I can pay high tuition, high taxes and get no retirement help. Enjoying lower living standards than the previous generation???

If Baby boomers want all this spending, they should tax their own wealth (the world's biggest pool of wealth). Since I'm getting nothing out of the deal, my earnings & companies might just go to Singapore for example.


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6576 posts, RR: 6
Reply 111, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 5107 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

[q

Quoting casinterest (Reply 109):
They are still towing the Paul Ryan /Mitt Romney magical math revenue plan.

You mean the one that people voted against?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 52
Reply 112, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 5098 times:

Quoting brilondon (Reply 107):
Once the populace has their debt level under control they must spend their money wisely

That's a lot to ask of some people lol

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 108):
- The US has a military that is bigger than the next 7 nations combined.
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 108):
If you cut too much there are more people out of work

Just playing devil's advocate, I hear these two statements a lot, but wouldn't cutting defense also hurt the economy since there will be less jobs?

Quoting casinterest (Reply 109):
As evidenced by this

Page 1 - I see nothing wrong here. The President wants more revenue increase than Boehner... this is part of a back and forth, AKA, negotiating. The spending increase is more than the revenue increase... why would anyone, let alone Republicans, want this?

Page 2 - a proposal to make Medicare more efficient. What's wrong with that? Not an ultimatum, I'm sure this will be debated. The GOP needs to get something out of this, otherwise it won't be a compromise and when they vote no they are just as "guilty" as the Democrats that shot down the bills that were in favor of Republicans

Quoting casinterest (Reply 109):
magical math revenue plan.

How so? I'm not seeing anything sketchy. They want to reduce deficit spending... how is "more spending increases than revenue increases = greater deficit" magical math?

If I read it wrong, please correct me, I'm just not seeing it



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4588 posts, RR: 2
Reply 113, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 5096 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 112):
How so? I'm not seeing anything sketchy. They want to reduce deficit spending... how is "more spending increases than revenue increases = greater deficit" magical math?

Their savings come from Projected growth based on revenue increasses that the is not allowed according to the budget rules.
Their points on Obama's deficits are based on their Proejected voodoo math as well, in regards to the wealthy.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 114, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 5087 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 113):
Their savings come from Projected growth based on revenue increasses that the is not allowed according to the budget rules.
Their points on Obama's deficits are based on their Proejected voodoo math as well, in regards to the wealthy.

When talking about voodoo math, you are talking about Obama's projections right? The ones that assume 5-6% real GDP growth, unemployment diving down to 4-5% in the next year or two, right?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3360 posts, RR: 9
Reply 115, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 5084 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 112):
Just playing devil's advocate, I hear these two statements a lot, but wouldn't cutting defense also hurt the economy since there will be less jobs?

Of course it will and I won't deny that, which is why I think steep government cuts or tax hikes are bad news right now.

What I don't like hearing is one side (the GOP) saying the SS, medicare and welfare are fair game for cuts while saying that defense is fine and run like an efficient corporation. I can switch those claims for the democrats.

Politically everything should be on the table. The reality of the situation is that while the US debt is high and needs to be reduced it is manageable and reducing it should be a medium to long term priority but the time for austerity is when there is growth and people are going back to work. Extreme efforts to balance the budget in the short term will be at best a zero sum game.

The US has the advantage of being able to control its monetary policy (something the EU cannot do) and in the face of record low interest rates and many areas of the world being much riskier investments the threat of inflation is not very high. If a sluggish economy was only a US problem and not a world one then rampant inflation would happen but compared to Europe the US has it pretty good.

With the Euro on life support people still want the Greenback over any other currency out there, also a drop in the value of the USD will help in stimulating the economy meaning it increases exports because they are cheaper.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 52
Reply 116, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5068 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 115):
Politically everything should be on the table. The reality of the situation is that while the US debt is high and needs to be reduced it is manageable and reducing it should be a medium to long term priority

   And BTW, how is your economy up there? I know about the Euro mess and the US', but not Canada's, and with an attitude like yours, it seems Canada should be doing pretty well   (that is, if you politicians listen to you lol)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7136 posts, RR: 8
Reply 117, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5060 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 108):
It is designed for a 20th century war and 21st century war is going to take place in cyberspace and by rogue groups such as Al-Qaeda.

Well not to take the thread off course, but one of the reasons why Iraq went to hell in a hand basket was because of manpower requirements for Shock and Awe, they did not have sufficient troops on the ground to control the situation after the battle was won.
Funny thing is, a lot of people laughed when the initial Chief of Staff stated the numbers required, in the long run, they actually did have to put the additional troops on the ground, imagine the situation today if they were there from the start.

In terms of cutting the military, I agree that all bases in Europe other than those required in Germany per the end of war declaration should be closed, a military in the 21st century will not see Europe invaded by the evil empire, maintaining troops there is a prestige postition only, as for training, those regions have been getting harder and harder to find.
As for using the bases for operations elswhere in the world, they first have to get permission from the Europeans and the odds of that are slim and none, so all the millions spent on those bases are better spent at home improving the long range a/c and tankers to allow them to bypass European points for fuel stops etc.
If having military personnel spending money in the civilian area is helpful to the community imagine the effect on communities in the USA where those forces would have to be dispersed.
Base closing would be put off for a few years while the demobilizing takes place, another boom to the local economies.


User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3360 posts, RR: 9
Reply 118, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 5029 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 117):
Well not to take the thread off course, but one of the reasons why Iraq went to hell in a hand basket was because of manpower requirements for Shock and Awe, they did not have sufficient troops on the ground to control the situation after the battle was won.
Quoting par13del (Reply 117):
Funny thing is, a lot of people laughed when the initial Chief of Staff stated the numbers required, in the long run, they actually did have to put the additional troops on the ground, imagine the situation today if they were there from the start.

Hindsight is 20/20, the planners of that war didn't expect an insurgency also if we are going to stay on topic why weren't taxes raised to pay for this war, that was the first time a war was started and taxes were cut.

Quoting par13del (Reply 117):
In terms of cutting the military, I agree that all bases in Europe other than those required in Germany per the end of war declaration should be closed, a military in the 21st century will not see Europe invaded by the evil empire, maintaining troops there is a prestige postition only, as for training, those regions have been getting harder and harder to find.

Its been 70 years since WW2 ended and almost 25 since the cold war did, just because its stipulated that troops have to stay in Germany doesn't mean this can be re-addressed and changed, although those are the bases you probably want to keep because they are the most developed. It's fine to keep bases in areas that are a threat to national and global security but today's Europe isn't one of them. Another example, keep troops in South Korea to keep the North in check but there is no need for troops in Iran. If those countries want US forces there then they have to pick up some of the tab.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8488 posts, RR: 2
Reply 119, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 5017 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 118):
Hindsight is 20/20, the planners of that war didn't expect an insurgency

Sure the Pentagon knew it. They are professionals. But the Bush Admin wanted to get its rocks off, doing something that hurt us far more than 9/11 did.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7136 posts, RR: 8
Reply 120, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 5008 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 115):
The reality of the situation is that while the US debt is high and needs to be reduced it is manageable and reducing it should be a medium to long term priority but the time for austerity is when there is growth and people are going back to work. Extreme efforts to balance the budget in the short term will be at best a zero sum game.

Well the US debt ceiling has been on a steady climb for decades, at most they have been reducing the rate of increase.
The mantra has always been when things are good you look at cutting, the response always is, why cut when you can afford what you are spending, the fiscal responsibility is not there, never has been.
Any plan that comes out of these negotiations will talk about cuts in the future usually 3 to 5 years which when the time comes if the economy is better will be kicked down the road. the debt ceiling is actually the only item which brings the nations debt to the fore for many people.

Somehow austerity was the name of the game in Europe to get their debt in order, France gets a new president who disagrees and suddenly austerity is now a bad word, where exactly are the experts in all this, are they political also?


User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3360 posts, RR: 9
Reply 121, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4996 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 120):
The mantra has always been when things are good you look at cutting, the response always is, why cut when you can afford what you are spending, the fiscal responsibility is not there, never has been.

That is a nonsense mantra and everyone thinking that got us into this mess in the first place. If things are good then by all means expand government and spend more but the government ideally should spend exactly what it takes in.

Quoting par13del (Reply 120):
Any plan that comes out of these negotiations will talk about cuts in the future usually 3 to 5 years which when the time comes if the economy is better will be kicked down the road. the debt ceiling is actually the only item which brings the nations debt to the fore for many people.

Up until 2011 this vote wasn't an issue, it was raised every year no problems at all.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4588 posts, RR: 2
Reply 122, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks ago) and read 4990 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 114):
When talking about voodoo math, you are talking about Obama's projections right? The ones that assume 5-6% real GDP growth, unemployment diving down to 4-5% in the next year or two, right?

At this point, who is to say it won't happen.
But the following is a pretty good writeup on the GOP projections.

http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion...9821445_krugmancolumncliffxml.html

The GOP is throwing a Karl Rove fit, instead of a Ronald Reagan direct challenge.

Quoting par13del (Reply 117):
Funny thing is, a lot of people laughed when the initial Chief of Staff stated the numbers required, in the long run, they actually did have to put the additional troops on the ground, imagine the situation today if they were there from the start.

Ahh, but politics dictated that this "cost" not be put forward. There were many in the early days that saw this coming. Even now, I suspect that Iran is gaining more influence, and much that was "won" will be lost.

Quoting par13del (Reply 117):
as for training, those regions have been getting harder and harder to find.

But they serve well for training and for strategic ties. There is not doubt that some costs need to be justified, but perhaps economic and military reasons keep the bases there.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 118):
e planners of that war didn't expect an insurgency

I very much doubt that. As Posted above, I think that politics won the day to hide the true costs.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39854 posts, RR: 74
Reply 123, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4976 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 105):
My preference is to avoid another 9/11 if possible.

They've been there, done that with box cutters.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 105):
My family and I fly enough to support the TSA.

I fly more often than you and I do not support this department.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 105):
Seems like that one would bring in cash. Selling seized property sends cash to the Treasury.

Property stolen from private citizens. Yes I say eliminate this department.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 105):
And then add money to build more prisons. (The women prisons in Oklahoma are FULL. When a new one goes in an existing prisoner needs to go out the door.) When you delay pardons because of administrative slowdowns you simpluy add to the costs of keeping prisoners locked up.

Too many laws on the books. Many of those prisoners are locked up on drug charges by overzealous prosecutors.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 108):
- It is a huge portion of federal spending and there is bureaucracy and inefficiency there as well.

No argument there. Cuts can be made in every single department yet still function and do what they're intended to do.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7136 posts, RR: 8
Reply 124, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4951 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 121):
That is a nonsense mantra and everyone thinking that got us into this mess in the first place. If things are good then by all means expand government and spend more but the government ideally should spend exactly what it takes in.

Well, is there anyone other than the Tea Party and GOP calling for government to live within its means, see your other comment below. Everyone else talks about the fragile economy additional spending needed, services are essemtial no pork, military needed, no one talks about how to pay for it, no one denies the figures that even if the rich are taxed to the hilt it will not put much of a dent in the deficit nor the money needed to continue to spending and its increases.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 121):
Up until 2011 this vote wasn't an issue, it was raised every year no problems at all.

Do you really believe the majority of the American people knew what the debt ceiling was prior to 2011 or even how it currently affects their lives? China owning so much of the USA debt, does that have any correlation to the continued increases in the debt ceiling, the USA is the only entity that has an unlimited debt ceiling where it can be raise whenever they choose, truly a very fortunate country.

As the thread is getting long, I'll repeat my response to the OP, go over the cliff and evaluate later, I suspect after the initial shock the situation will be much better, after all, it has 90% of what most Americans want anyway, increase in taxes and cuts in spending. Second one it to set a time limit on sessions of the House and Senate, let them spend more time at home, they are not doing much in DC now anyway.


User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4588 posts, RR: 2
Reply 125, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4916 times:

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/...an-simpson-fiscal-cliff/?hpt=hp_t1


Alan Simpson is a bit worried about the situation, and he levels some pretty serious blows in the direction of the tea party and AARP

"Simpson focused his disdain on the 70 or right wing Tea Party members in Congress inspired by anti-tax activist Grover Norquist and on another group he called leftwing, the AARP (American Association of Retired People) that he dismissed as a "marketing organization."

Talking about the Tea Party "worming its way" into American politics, Simpson said: "You've got 70 Republicans now – 70 guys who didn't come to limit government, they came to stop it and when you have that, you have a serious situation." About the AARP's resistance to reform of Social Security, Medicare and taxes, Simpson said: "This is a marketing organization; they don't give a rat's fanny about their grandchildren. They care about money and they make a ton of it."

"If we are enthralled with these two outfits and jerks, the country will not make it through the next 30 days," Simpson said. "The country needs patriots instead of panderers."

"



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5515 posts, RR: 8
Reply 126, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4915 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 99):
Here are a few facts:
- GOP has expressed willingness to discuss increased taxation
- Democrats have refused to express any willingness whatsoever to discuss spending cuts, indeed want new spending increases and the permanent elimination of the debt ceiling.
- Democratic mouthpieces continue to blame GOP for not wanting to negotiate.

The interesting thing that I heard from one of the Republican response was the desire to take the discussions out of "the media" and discuss things behind closed doors. I hope the parties agree to this. It will be the only way to get something done.

Quoting par13del (Reply 101):
Unfortunately, I do not believe that the dems will commit to any spending cuts ahead of time that can be put into the budget document, after all, they just won the election and have the peoples mandate.

That is what appears to be the case. I thoroughly disagree with it though, they should at least be ready to say "OK, we''ll accept these cuts that you propose (with these changes of course) but we still need to keep the tax increase for top tier earners.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 104):
The GOP, in my eyes, is making steps towards compromise. That doesn't mean they should roll over and accept whatever bill comes at them, and that doesn't mean the Democrats aren't sending bills that are too friendly for their side. We shall see

As long as each side actually takes steps forward... toward compromise then yes I agree. But right now each side appears to be mostly posturing and setting the battle field. I do agree that the Republicans do not need to "roll over" and just take whatever is handed to them.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 113):
Their savings come from Projected growth based on revenue increasses that the is not allowed according to the budget rules.
Their points on Obama's deficits are based on their Proejected voodoo math as well, in regards to the wealthy.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 114):
When talking about voodoo math, you are talking about Obama's projections right? The ones that assume 5-6% real GDP growth, unemployment diving down to 4-5% in the next year or two, right?

All politicians practice voodoo math....

Quoting par13del (Reply 124):
China owning so much of the USA debt,

China doesn't really own that much" per se, yes they own more than any other nation but China owns around 8% of the US debt.

Quoting par13del (Reply 124):
I'll repeat my response to the OP, go over the cliff and evaluate later, I suspect after the initial shock the situation will be much better, after all, it has 90% of what most Americans want anyway, increase in taxes and cuts in spending.

This is the way I feel too, the cuts must be made and the taxes need to return (at all levels) to where they were previously. The SS "tax holiday" needs to end, and we need return to some semblance of fiscal sanity. Honestly I think the Republicans prefer it (so much for the President have an upper hand) as it mean they don't have to get their hands dirty with agreeing to a tax increase and then they can push for tax new reductions.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 127, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4902 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 126):
This is the way I feel too, the cuts must be made and the taxes need to return (at all levels) to where they were previously. The SS "tax holiday" needs to end, and we need return to some semblance of fiscal sanity. Honestly I think the Republicans prefer it (so much for the President have an upper hand) as it mean they don't have to get their hands dirty with agreeing to a tax increase and then they can push for tax new reductions.

Anyway, if we do "go over the cliff" with sequestration, the deficit next year will only decline by maybe 15-20%, yet everyone is running around like headless chickens about it. I really don't think most people realize how serious our deficit really is, just because we have gotten away with it up to now without any pain at all.

At some point, the impact is no different that someone who spends years partying, gambling and racking up huge debts to a guy named "Vinnie The Hammer". At some point, you have to pay down your debts.

I still find it astounding that some people are not ashamed at putting their children into such debt.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4588 posts, RR: 2
Reply 128, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4891 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 127):
Anyway, if we do "go over the cliff" with sequestration, the deficit next year will only decline by maybe 15-20%, yet everyone is running around like headless chickens about it.

the Defecit will not decline if we go over the cliff. The Econonomy will collapse. Many middle and low income folks will get tax increases in the thousands of dollar range that will cause a new recession and perhaps depression. The decrease in spending on the Federal side will cause massive furloughs in Federal, State, and local jobs. Even Private companies will have to let go of staff.

Driving off a cliff is not the safe way to get down, when there is a trail that can be gently sloped to use.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 129, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4886 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 128):
the Defecit will not decline if we go over the cliff. The Econonomy will collapse.

You are largely correct in that an economic downturn will likely wipe out any gains from the higher tax rates.

Imagine that - a liberal trying to convince ME that increasing tax rates does not result in increased revenue. The irony is palpable.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 128):
Many middle and low income folks will get tax increases in the thousands of dollar range that will cause a new recession and perhaps depression.

I would much rather a return to Clinton rates gradually - like 1/3 in 2013, another 1/3rd in 2014, and the final 1/3rd in 2015. But it's a sad fact their tax rates do have to go up.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 128):
The decrease in spending on the Federal side will cause massive furloughs in Federal, State, and local jobs.

And I am perfectly happy with that. I would rather the government pay $50K in unemployment benefits than $150K in salary and benefits for government bureaucrats.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4588 posts, RR: 2
Reply 130, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4880 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 129):

Imagine that - a liberal trying to convince ME that increasing tax rates does not result in increased revenue. The irony is palpable.

Imagine that, a Conservative that doesn't understand the difference between a little increase vs a big increase in spending.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 129):
And I am perfectly happy with that. I would rather the government pay $50K in unemployment benefits than $150K in salary and benefits for government bureaucrats.

And again, not fully understanding the scope and reach of the cuts. It extends to the private sector as well.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 131, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4872 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 130):
Imagine that, a Conservative that doesn't understand the difference between a little increase vs a big increase in spending.

So, are you saying that we should pull back spending? Obama seems to disagree with that.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 130):
And again, not fully understanding the scope and reach of the cuts. It extends to the private sector as well.

Oh, I understand entirely, believe me. But that is no excuse to continue deficit spending like this. The government needs to limit spending to about what it brings in - let the chips fall where they may.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7136 posts, RR: 8
Reply 132, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4863 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 128):
the Defecit will not decline if we go over the cliff. The Econonomy will collapse.

Well if we look at Europe where government spending and direct involvement in the economy is much more extensive than the US, it is not so dire, is it bad yes, have any economies collapsed, no, not even Greece, so are the cuts in the cliff as great on a proportional basis, I honestly don't think so. The number of persons employed by the Federal System is not as great on a percentage basis as Europe, and Dreadnought's point is valid, in some instances based on wages and un-employment benefits, there will be a cost savings.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 128):
Driving off a cliff is not the safe way to get down, when there is a trail that can be gently sloped to use.

Very easy to say never done, at least if you are talking about the trail sloping downwards, if you mean upwards, then yes, increases have been taking place for decades with no end in sight.

Another item to cut is RED TAPE, by that we do not mean the fundamentals of not allowing drug money to be openly invested in a charity, but the number of people and process's that a document must go through before a business owner or a potential business person can do anything, idle people need to create things for themselves to do, this actually has a cost factor.


User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4588 posts, RR: 2
Reply 133, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4848 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 131):

So, are you saying that we should pull back spending? Obama seems to disagree with that.

How so? Obama's plan calls for spending cuts. However you can't put that forward to the GOP which has never started in the middle in the last 4 years. Especially with the incompetant Tea party members.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 131):
Oh, I understand entirely, believe me. But that is no excuse to continue deficit spending like this. The government needs to limit spending to about what it brings in - let the chips fall where they may.

yeah, kind of funny how the GOP acts all worried now, but was so happy to cut taxes when deficit still was not taken care of. The Tax Rates need to go up. Especially since the economy is recovering. To do otherwise leaves no plan for when everything goes to hell in a handbasket.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 134, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4847 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 133):
How so? Obama's plan calls for spending cuts.

What spending cuts does Obama call for? And don't give me "over 10 years" crap - I want to know how many billions he will cut out of 2013 and 2014. 10-year promises are worth less than a steaming pile of ****. The taxes come into play in the short term - what are the short term cuts?

Quoting casinterest (Reply 133):
yeah, kind of funny how the GOP acts all worried now, but was so happy to cut taxes when deficit still was not taken care of. The Tax Rates need to go up. Especially since the economy is recovering. To do otherwise leaves no plan for when everything goes to hell in a handbasket.

As you admitted before, tax rate increases do not mean there will be an increase in tax revenue, therefore you can't complain too loudly that a tax rate decrease led to a drop in tax revenue.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7136 posts, RR: 8
Reply 135, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4809 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 133):
However you can't put that forward to the GOP which has never started in the middle in the last 4 years. Especially with the incompetant Tea party members.

Why not, how is it going to pass if the Democrats who control the senate don't bring it to the floor, there is absolutely nothing, nothing that the republicans and their Tea Party affiliates can do without democratic support including POTUS signing, ask yourself this question, what bill has POTUS had to veto under the republican controlled house and democratic senate?

If the republicans and the Tea Party had so much control to drive fear in the democrats for even suggesting items to put in a bill, the Tea Party mandates would already be in place, have any of them made it, whats their batting average?


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11584 posts, RR: 15
Reply 136, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4800 times:

If there is to be a serious debate on earned benefits (we all pay into them so we can all use them; entitlements fits the right-wing narrative better though) we also need to tal about cutting entitlements to Congressmen and make it retroactive. Some in Congress serve two terms and recieve full benefits. That we the people pay for. Only a few get to enjoy. That's what an entitlement is, folks! Not Social Security.


Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinecws818 From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1176 posts, RR: 2
Reply 137, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4783 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 123):
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 105):
My family and I fly enough to support the TSA.

I fly more often than you and I do not support this department.

How can you possibly know that you fly more than he does?



volgende halte...Station Hollands Spoor
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39854 posts, RR: 74
Reply 138, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4786 times:

Quoting cws818 (Reply 137):
How can you possibly know that you fly more than he does?

I'm flying on a weekly basis and I seriously doubt Ken777 is putting his family through that misery on a weekly basis.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4588 posts, RR: 2
Reply 139, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4742 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 134):
What spending cuts does Obama call for? And don't give me "over 10 years" crap - I want to know how many billions he will cut out of 2013 and 2014. 10-year promises are worth less than a steaming pile of ****. The taxes come into play in the short term - what are the short term cuts?

Where is the growth Bush promised in 2001 and 2003 when he cut taxes? The cuts will come when the GOP gets out of Diapers and learns that it is easier to close a gap by using both sides.: Revenue and spending

Quoting par13del (Reply 135):
Why not, how is it going to pass if the Democrats who control the senate don't bring it to the floor, there is absolutely nothing, nothing that the republicans and their Tea Party affiliates can do without democratic support including POTUS signing, ask yourself this question, what bill has POTUS had to veto under the republican controlled house and democratic senate?

it's not a matter of vetoeing the bill. Do you realize that? Without a bill, the laws of the fiscall cliff are already in place.

The House and the Senate need to get together on a bill that they can both agree on and standing on the opposite sides of the roads and waving hands is not doing the job.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8224 posts, RR: 8
Reply 140, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4728 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 118):
why weren't taxes raised to pay for this war,

Conservatives (especially the wealthy ones) have an aversion to paying taxes - even when there is a war on. So Bush & Cheney ran their wars on the credit card.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 118):
that was the first time a war was started and taxes were cut.

I call it Guns & Butter & Cake.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 121):
Up until 2011 this vote wasn't an issue,

Never had the Tea Party yo-yos in Congress screwing things up before then. Now the situation is different - if teh GOP plays that game again this year then it will be open season on any GOP President in the future.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 123):
Property stolen from private citizens.

There are laws that include seizure of assets. RICO (RICCO?) & drug laws come to mind. There was actually a county sheriff some years back that seized a Corvette in a drug bust. He turned it into a "sheriff's car" complete with lights and a sign on both side that they DO seize assets in drug busts. Never saw a motivator that beat that one.

Quoting cws818 (Reply 137):
How can you possibly know that you fly more than he does?

He probably looked at my age.   Until the Big C hit I would take about 5 RTW flights a year on business. First to Australia then to the UK via HKG. Top tier on AA and lifetime Platinum (a gift for breaking the 2 million miles barrier.)

I still fly some, but these days the son-in-law is doing the travel with his band. They do everything from Asia (mostly Japan) to Europe as well as domestic gigs around the country. I do have an opinion on air travel security for him.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39854 posts, RR: 74
Reply 141, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4726 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 140):
There are laws that include seizure of assets. RICO (RICCO?) & drug laws come to mind. There was actually a county sheriff some years back that seized a Corvette in a drug bust. He turned it into a "sheriff's car" complete with lights and a sign on both side that they DO seize assets in drug busts. Never saw a motivator that beat that one.

I don't support that.
We need to end the war on drugs.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 142, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4723 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 139):
Where is the growth Bush promised in 2001 and 2003 when he cut taxes?

We had between 3.0%-4.0% growth every quarter between 2003 and 2008. Are you saying that didn't happen? Not stellar growth, but I hate that anyway - just makes bigger bubbles. But pretty respectable.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 139):
The cuts will come when the GOP gets out of Diapers and learns that it is easier to close a gap by using both sides.: Revenue and spending

Are you doing this on purpose? Even if Obama "taxed the rich" up to 100%, it won't be enough. No amount of tax increase will make a dent in the deficit by more than 5% (CBO's numbers), and let's be generous and double that to 10% (and assume no negative impact on the economy).

The "Balanced" approach won't cut it, as all it does is end up cutting the deficit (by the generous calculation above) by 20%. That's not enough. The deficit needs to be cut by no less than 70% IMHO, which means $3.50 in spending cuts for every $1.00 in new revenue.

And that is in 2013 and 2014, not 2023.

I know that the Democrats have always been mathematically challenged - and while the GOP generally knows better it has not had the discipline to do what they know is right. But this **** is getting serious. In my opinion we have maybe 3 years, 6 at the outside, before the dollar/debt bubbles burst, when the Fed is unable to control interest rates any more, which will lead to a stock market crash, a real estate crash (yes, again) and finally the bond markets will crash. And once the bond markets crash you will hear 70 million elderly screaming - just you wait.

One big difference between now and the depression is that the government is also in trouble at this point (government debt was not a big problem in 1929). We are really not going to have a huge failure until the government kind of comes to its wits' end. It will, but it comes as a last massive orgy of money printing to try to save everything - unlike anything you have seen yet. QE1, QE2, QE3 is nothing like what the Fed has to do when this thing starts to fall. They will have to print, buy, and buy, and buy, and try to keep the whole Ponzi scheme going. They will not be