Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do? #2  
User currently offlineiowaman From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4404 posts, RR: 6
Posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4960 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

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

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


Next flights: WN DSM-LAS-PHX, US PHX-SJD.
112 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKBJCpilot From United States of America, joined May 2012, 176 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4942 times:

Reform the US Tax Code:

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's my utopian suggestion.



Samsonite, I was way off!
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39888 posts, RR: 74
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4939 times:

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

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



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8285 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4903 times:

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

Unfortunately it would be far from Utopia.

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

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

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


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


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7915 posts, RR: 52
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4895 times:

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


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineKBJCpilot From United States of America, joined May 2012, 176 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4841 times:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Samsonite, I was way off!
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8285 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4833 times:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12571 posts, RR: 25
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4820 times:

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

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

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



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineKBJCpilot From United States of America, joined May 2012, 176 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4804 times:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Samsonite, I was way off!
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8285 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4781 times:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7915 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4775 times:

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

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



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12571 posts, RR: 25
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4752 times:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7242 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4732 times:

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

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

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 4):
BUT,

There it is

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Military Industrial complex needs to be cut big time.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8285 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4721 times:

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

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

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

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


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12571 posts, RR: 25
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 4707 times:

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

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

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

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

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

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



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4629 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4674 times:

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


Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7242 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4665 times:

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

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

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


User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4629 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4637 times:

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

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

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



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8285 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4633 times:

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

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


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7915 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4632 times:

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


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7242 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4627 times:

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

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

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

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


User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4629 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4625 times:

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

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

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

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



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8285 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4614 times:

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

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

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

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

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


User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7242 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4606 times:

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

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

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

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


User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4629 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4542 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 23):

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

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

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



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
25 seb146 : Congress should read these threads. They would learn so much about America! Because the economy was hurting until 2001? How would that work with littl
26 NorthstarBoy : i make around 27K per year, under your tax scheme i'd go from paying zero taxes (I often get a refund) to 3100 dollars a year? Yikes! No thank you! m
27 Post contains images Superfly : If I were in charge, you'd pay only $2,700. Then you'd be paying your "fair-share". After all, the current President keeps yapping his mouth about pe
28 par13del : Sounds reasonable, however, I do not see the democrats in either the House on the Senate supporting such a plan, the cry is that the country is growi
29 NorthstarBoy : I should be more clear. Under my scheme, the tax rate wouldn't be 50 percent but rather, if you were in my theoretical top tax bracket of 45 percent,
30 par13del : Ah, got it, works for me, the more money we let our seniors keep the more they can provide for themselves.
31 DeltaMD90 : The problem with levels like this is someone making $50000 a year will get $47500 after taxes but someone making $50001 would get $44999.90 after tax
32 StarAC17 : That isn't true as taxes only effect income above the specified benchmarks and people forget this and Obama doesn't stress it enough. In that case th
33 DeltaMD90 : I did not know this, to be fair though, I wasn't accusing Obama of anything cynical here. This makes sense. I wish, however, EVERYONE paid taxes, eve
34 seb146 : That is the problem: Most (not all but most) people follow the punditry. FOX screams about how taxes will be raied on everyone and HuffPo screams abo
35 StarAC17 : I didn't claim you were and I apologize if I gave that impression. My point is that if Obama wants to sell to the American public that he is intendin
36 Ken777 : People "pass through"" each tax bracket. That means that someone going through the 10% bracket pay tax at the 10% rate for the income in that bracket
37 Post contains links Dreadnought : I agree (except for the affordable health care part - whenever the government gets involved it will either become more expensive or rationed). That's
38 casinterest : No, the problem is that people have spent their tax cuts already. Mortgages, college, cars. Jacking the rates up all at once will have painfull ramif
39 par13del : One of the primary differences between the democrats and republicans when it comes to military spending, the only time when both sides do come togeth
40 Dreadnought : Then why do the Democrats (and to a lesser extent the Republicans) not propose anything that comes close to bringing the deficit back down to a relat
41 zckls04 : Given the religious war in congress, it's really the only option. Without wishing to reignite old wounds (to use my favorite mixed metaphor of the da
42 Dreadnought : But they pay a higher percentage of the nation's taxes than in just about any industrialized nation, relative to the amount of wealth they earn/have.
43 StarAC17 : There in lies the problem that causes pretty much all problems "Short term thinking"!! If you are suggesting that the US federal government run a bal
44 Ken777 : Which is why some one like Romney can make over $20 Million and pay 13%. Forget the "rate" and look at around 300 pages of loopholes with Romney's re
45 casinterest : Because they don't want to piss off the voters. No, it is too much , too fast. We need to put in the handicap ramp for access here. The cuts and the
46 Post contains links Dreadnought : Sorry, but the "long term thinking" is a fraud in this case. People are calling for spending cuts over 10 years - which is absolutely non-binding on
47 mt99 : I may be wrong, but this the way i see it is that its because its a different chain altogether. What you are saying is akin to: If i buy a service fr
48 zckls04 : You're getting taxed once on amount A (income tax from the amount you started with) and once on amount B (the amount you end up with minus the amount
49 casinterest : Still not the same thing. Your comparison is based on how much taxes the super rich pay. Not the relative rate to their earnings. We have a progressi
50 StarAC17 : No repo men are coming to seize US assets and that is merely in your head. The US is still the place where foreign interests want to put their money
51 Dreadnought : Which is irrelevant, as it is relative to measure not provided. How much of total taxes the top 10% pay relative to how much of the pie they earn is
52 StarAC17 : Same with the Canadian and Australian dollars which are both doing very well because along with Switzerland those 3 countries have been responsible b
53 par13del : I quoted them separately because the comment below can be regarded as a contradiction. Hence people think the debt and deficit is irrelevant, the sum
54 StarAC17 : I look on what the US government provides compared to what the Canadian government provides to me and its very similar at the end of the day and our
55 Post contains links Dreadnought : Here is an example of the problem. The Senate passed a $60 billion emergency aid package for Hurricane Sandy, but only $9 billion of it is aimed at s
56 casinterest : If that is relevant, then the cost of living and basic survival for the poor is just as relevant. It would be a 10% cut from today, which over the co
57 par13del : The Senate is run by the Democrats, the executive is run by the Democrats, the House is run by the Republicans, the Tea Party is not an elected party
58 casinterest : They used their threats to bully the moderates . Look at the election cycles. The GOP has been replacing moderate members with far right whackos. The
59 par13del : Agree 100%, my betting money is on more can kicking and some convoluted structure next year that no one can fully explain but will have a balance bud
60 tugger : Interestingly enough it is the big monied groups that are using the relatively weak "Tea Party" candidates to do their work for them. The groups are
61 Post contains images StarAC17 : Issues with the US debt didn't start in 2009. Where was this group with this level of organization in 2002-2003 when GWB was starting wars while cutt
62 par13del : Exactly, why is the Tea Party, federal deficit and massive government spending such an issue today, where was Moody during the 2003-2003 GWB era, why
63 tugger : I understand that, that is not the issue that "monied' groups care about. The idea is to get people they support elected and to weaken their legislat
64 StarAC17 : It will but as I said in my last reply and Casinterest mentioned, these republican's seats will be challenged by more extreme candidates in 2014 in t
65 par13del : Do you think they are just out to sabotage or they have some other hidden agenda? I have always thought of them as pushing their agenda to ensure tha
66 Post contains images Ken777 : If you buy shares you are paying for those shares with post tax funds. So you buy $100,000 worth with funds that have been taxed and sell those share
67 seb146 : The same people who claim that cutting income does wonders for reducing deficits. What I don't understand is people who claim to love and understand
68 Post contains links tugger : A deal is supposedly within reach: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...all-drop-set-to-ring-in-tax-hikes/ And of course everybody is trying to find
69 seb146 : And, of course, when the deficit plummits, Obama will still be branded as "worst president ever" by conservative loud mouths. Is that overall or just
70 AirframeAS : According to USAToday, Boehner is denying a deal is reached. Can't link a source since I'm on my iPad, sorry.
71 tugger : Well it certainly hasn't been reached yet, but hopefully, perhaps, it is within reach. And if it isn't reached at least we can see elements of someth
72 tugger : Has nothing to do with "the media", the way taxes work is that each stage is incremental and goes into effect at each level. So yes, everyone, even "
73 DocLightning : So a deal is reached. The problem is that there are three more impending deadlines. I predict brinksmanship on all three.
74 par13del : The House under the Republicans have passed budgets each of the last few years, the Senate under the Democrats has not. The House obligation is to th
75 flipdewaf : Do you get to see the debating live on TV? See what they are discussing and what things they are taking into account or is it all behind closed doors?
76 Ken777 : Conservatives have felt that way about him before be actually took office. Especially in the southern states. Of course not. Politicians can say what
77 Dreadnought : Seriously? Do you really expect the deficit to go down in any significant way if we did what Obama wanted?
78 flipdewaf : seems a bit silly that you can't get access to the elected officials and see how they are actually running your country. it seems to me that it would
79 casinterest : I expect an economic recovery to take care of quite a bit of the defecit, coupled with the higher taxes to hopefully start paying down the defecit. H
80 Dreadnought : A) Please look at the historical tables (google them) and tell me how much an increase in revenue can be expected from a typical economic recovery. H
81 DeltaMD90 : How? I realize that a better economy produces more revenue, but I don't think we can come close to closing the deficit. Of course, you mention spendi
82 Ken777 : I don't expect the deficit to go down simply because we will not see the GOP work with Democrats. That would take accepting tax increases (probably b
83 casinterest : Typical of what? This was a huge recession , with huge unemployment costs not comparable with other recessions. The ones expecting a Recession are th
84 FlyPNS1 : If we could get tax revenues to be about 18.5% of GDP (close to historic average) and have GDP rise by about 2.5% for the next 3-4 years (decent grow
85 Post contains images Dreadnought : Ah, so you are already blaming everything on the GOP. Just like an obedient obamaphile... Recessions, and depressions, are all followed by a recovery
86 Ken777 : I've been blaming the GOP ever since an unnecessary invasion (and resulting 10 year war) when there were no bloody WMDs. Actually it is more a Conser
87 Post contains images par13del : I know I know, the Republicans and their Tea Party fanatics who refused to allow tax increases on the rich. I really could not resist, one hand is ne
88 Dreadnought : You mean neo-conservative, don't you? Two very different things. And which policies of theirs are you talking about? You mean the policies (and laws)
89 DeltaMD90 : To be fair, I was extremely unpleased with the cuts, or should I say, lack of cuts laid on the table by the Democrats...
90 Ken777 : Let's start with the "refund of the surplus to the taxpayer" continuing when the surplus disappears. Since my actual experience (8 years) is in Austr
91 par13del : I believe that you need to put education on the same level as the medical system, a more intelligent system. The USA spends more money than most othe
92 Post contains images StarAC17 : The reasons that countries like China, India and Brazil (the emerging economies) have growth levels like that now which are sluggish to what they hav
93 Dreadnought : There was an article in the WSJ recently showing how headcount is exploding at public universities in the administration field - far faster than the
94 FlyPNS1 : Then you're going to have to raise taxes, because you won't get to 18.5 under the Bush tax rates. I agree, but you'll have a hard time doing that if
95 Dreadnought : And I have consistently, in this forum, called for a return to the Clinton rates. For everyone. I would also support a national VAT. But there is no
96 n318ea : A return to Clinton SPENDING rates would be another Dream Act. Everyone is going to have to share some pain to fix this. But that's why we will fail.
97 casinterest : But it hasn't been anti -growth policies that have held it down. The biggest problem has been the lasting effect of the housing crisis. Too many fami
98 Post contains links and images Revelation : Seems the mood is downright nasty these days: John Boehner Told Harry Reid 'Go F--- Yourself' Outside the Oval Office Well, at least both men know whe
99 par13del : The debt ceiling will be raised because the entire nation will be on the Tea Party lunatics to enough already about debt and deficit. As for the spen
100 Dreadnought : What are you saying, that the American people simply don't want to hear about debts and deficits anymore? From the last election results, I would gue
101 Ken777 : The problem with the housing bubble we had wasn't easing the availability of money - it was the crooks who played the system. We had a huge surge in
102 Post contains links and images Dreadnought : It was the massive availability of money. http://www.nber.org/papers/w18609 Nowhere near the same magnitude You know, you keep going on and on about
103 Post contains images par13del : Yes, that is my belief, and when the ability exist to villify the messenger the message get's lost, as per your comment below. Am I right in assuming
104 Post contains links par13del : Something from the other side of the pond I read this morning. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...ays-Chancellor-George-Osborne.html Bit of a long
105 Ken777 : It does make sense. What makes no sense is the continuing of tax free rides when out nation's debt is so high. Not even close. The money an employer
106 par13del : Based on constitution, the power of states within the US are not duplicated in any other country, most others started out as central authorities who
107 Post contains links Ken777 : I believe in the concept of equal protection under the law and I believe that is significant'y diluted when you move authority to the states. Medicai
108 Dreadnought : But it is a deduction for the employer. It is a perk. Like free parking. It started being a common perk in WWII when government wage freezes were in
109 par13del : Hence my original point 3 quoted again below. The Federal government does not have to eliminate the state to provide protections for the American peo
110 Post contains links Ken777 : And so is your salary/wage. And both nanny care and your salary are income to you and should be taxed the same IF you are going to make any changes t
111 StarAC17 : Regarding Swiss health care I would say that you pay into private insurance that everyone is mandated to buy into it, if you do that then you are pay
112 DeltaMD90 : What you described is almost how the US does it. Most states don't require a permit to purchase guns, but private people have the same expectation to
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Today Is Friday: What Are You Going To Do Tonight? posted Fri Feb 24 2006 22:59:36 by Bongo
What Are You Listening To Right Now? posted Wed May 16 2012 22:14:14 by 2707200X
What Are You Listening To Right Now? posted Fri Jul 2 2010 12:43:12 by Thom@s
What Are You Listening To Right Now? posted Sat Jan 16 2010 08:22:33 by AirPacific747
What Are You Listening To Right Now? posted Mon Dec 21 2009 09:37:21 by AF340
What Are You Listening To Right Now? posted Sun Oct 25 2009 18:12:32 by Phoenix9
What Are You Listening To? Right NOW! posted Wed May 20 2009 12:52:39 by AF340
What Are You Listening To? posted Tue Mar 10 2009 14:27:56 by Cedars747
What Are You Listening To? posted Sun Dec 28 2008 00:35:40 by WestJetYQQ
What Are You Listening To? posted Tue Aug 5 2008 16:20:50 by Cedars747