• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 5973
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Fri Nov 30, 2012 5:44 pm

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
 
User avatar
pu
Posts: 1316
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 1:08 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Fri Nov 30, 2012 7:06 pm

(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]
 
StarAC17
Posts: 3400
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:54 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Fri Nov 30, 2012 7:23 pm

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 avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9821
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Fri Nov 30, 2012 7:27 pm

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.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
wingman
Posts: 2769
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Fri Nov 30, 2012 7:37 pm

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 avatar
Tugger
Posts: 5973
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Fri Nov 30, 2012 7:46 pm

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 avatar
ER757
Posts: 2426
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Fri Nov 30, 2012 7:48 pm

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 avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9821
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Fri Nov 30, 2012 7:57 pm

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
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Fri Nov 30, 2012 8:00 pm

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 avatar
casinterest
Posts: 5358
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Fri Nov 30, 2012 8:01 pm

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 avatar
ER757
Posts: 2426
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Fri Nov 30, 2012 8:06 pm

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 avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9821
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Fri Nov 30, 2012 8:27 pm

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.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 5358
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Fri Nov 30, 2012 8:37 pm

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.
 
fr8mech
Posts: 6602
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Fri Nov 30, 2012 8:44 pm

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 avatar
ER757
Posts: 2426
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Fri Nov 30, 2012 8:47 pm

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.
 
fr8mech
Posts: 6602
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Fri Nov 30, 2012 8:59 pm

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 avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9821
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Fri Nov 30, 2012 9:04 pm

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%.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
User avatar
pu
Posts: 1316
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 1:08 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Fri Nov 30, 2012 10:31 pm

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 avatar
ER757
Posts: 2426
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Fri Nov 30, 2012 11:20 pm

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 avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9821
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Fri Nov 30, 2012 11:20 pm

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.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9821
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Fri Nov 30, 2012 11:23 pm

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.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
User avatar
ER757
Posts: 2426
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Fri Nov 30, 2012 11:33 pm

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 avatar
pu
Posts: 1316
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 1:08 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Fri Nov 30, 2012 11:59 pm

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 avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9821
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Sat Dec 01, 2012 12:39 am

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"
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
IMissPiedmont
Posts: 6200
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 12:58 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Sat Dec 01, 2012 12:53 am

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.
The day you stop learning is the day you should die.
 
User avatar
pu
Posts: 1316
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 1:08 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Sat Dec 01, 2012 1:08 am

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 avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Sat Dec 01, 2012 1:15 am

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 :)
 
StarAC17
Posts: 3400
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:54 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Sat Dec 01, 2012 1:24 am

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 avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9821
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Sat Dec 01, 2012 1:35 am

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%.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
n318ea
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:56 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Sat Dec 01, 2012 1:37 am

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.
Red Red Red Red Red Neck!
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9821
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Sat Dec 01, 2012 1:38 am

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.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
fr8mech
Posts: 6602
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Sat Dec 01, 2012 1:59 am

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 avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Sat Dec 01, 2012 2:06 am

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 avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9821
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Sat Dec 01, 2012 2:27 am

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.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Sat Dec 01, 2012 3:00 am

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 :)
 
Ken777
Posts: 9024
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Sat Dec 01, 2012 3:36 am

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.
 
cws818
Posts: 824
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 7:42 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Sat Dec 01, 2012 5:59 am

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
 
seb146
Posts: 13791
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Sat Dec 01, 2012 6:08 am

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 avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:22 am

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 :)
 
wingman
Posts: 2769
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Sat Dec 01, 2012 5:30 pm

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 avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9821
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Sat Dec 01, 2012 6:01 pm

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.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6670
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Sat Dec 01, 2012 6:44 pm

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.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9024
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Sat Dec 01, 2012 8:39 pm

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 avatar
Tugger
Posts: 5973
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Sat Dec 01, 2012 11:15 pm

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
 
Ken777
Posts: 9024
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Sun Dec 02, 2012 1:24 am

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.
 
StarAC17
Posts: 3400
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:54 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Sun Dec 02, 2012 4:52 am

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!!!!!
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Sun Dec 02, 2012 12:08 pm

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
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 1530
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Sun Dec 02, 2012 12:35 pm

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
Image
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6670
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Sun Dec 02, 2012 1:16 pm

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  
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Budget Compromise - What Are You Willing To Do?

Sun Dec 02, 2012 1:26 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 48):

As Ross Perot once said; "Worshington is a pully-pull pit!"
Bring back the Concorde
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], fr8mech, Google Adsense [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 18 guests