Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Debt ceiling politics

Debt ceiling politics (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2011, 09:03 PM
 
You know it really does come down to the lack of competition that raises prices for every one involved, government and consumers. Be it military contracts or health care services. Meat packing companies to telecom companies. Companies are getting really big, really powerful. They are putting away massive amounts of profit and creating monopolies.

Example almost every major city in north america has one cable provider and one phone company that controls all the internet. Slowly as everything is bought up merged together and consolidated the ability to get better prices for anything is gone. This is true for consumers and true for government which is why we are all paying more then before.

More companies split up means more independent companies to compete for services and products. More people employed for a stronger tax base. Less profits overall being banked and more money flowing in the economy. Maybe the problem isn't tax collection or spending. Its lack of competition driving price up and lack of competition lowering overall wages for the majority of the population.

Think about it, if AT&T was split up into 5 companies. Verizon split up into 5 companies. That's 20 new phone companies to pick from for Cell Phone service, all trying to beat each other out for the large government contract. Just a thought but in every industry its the same thing.

Look at meat packing, 30 years ago dozens of companies, smaller less powerful companies. Good wages, unions now its like 4 or 5, and its slave labour. Lower wages, less companies to tax from, lower incomes from workers to tax from, less money spent in the economy.

PRetty sure most of you will ignore this post for no validity but im just looking at the problem from a different angle.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2011, 09:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Anyone else notice that Big Mac continues to declare Entitlement Programs to be "unconstitutional" even though I already rebutted that notion?

OAW

I did, if he's rebutted this I haven't seen it yet. I'm starting to wonder if Big Mac is really Abe, cause it's hard to get him to answer direct questions without writing essays about other stuff.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2011, 09:18 PM
 
Seems to me that the only way this issue will be resolved is if *both* sides compromise on their religions. It also seems to me that both sides are only thinking about 2012 and not at all about avoiding global economic collapse
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2011, 09:23 PM
 
Wiskedjak, we spent around 2.2 Trillion in 2001 and ran a deficit even back then. Today we take in 2.7 Trillion in revenue, but we spend 3.5 Trillion. If we could scale spending back to its 2001 level, we'd run large surpluses based on the current tax code.

OAW, I have you on ignore. The Entitlements are unconstitutional. The New Deal was unconstitutional and only through illegal intimidation of the Supreme Court did FDR get a stamp of approval. Intimidation of a coequal branch to get your way doesn't equal constitutionality. It's tyranny, and just because it's become institutionalized tyranny taken for granted over a number of generations doesn't make it any less tyrannical and unconstitutional. So don't tell me they're constitutional, please - it's insulting to the common decency.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2011, 09:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
I find the politics of this whole situation fascinating. The Tea Party Republicans are rejecting any tax hike or tax credit repeal out of hand, but the non-tea-party Republicans can't pass a budget on their own without their votes. It's a stalemate, entirely within the Republican party. (Can w even call them a party anymore, or are they a coalition government?)
It reminds me of how people used claim that the Democrats were nothing more than the cobbling together of several different groups. Well, now I see three or four groups making up the Republican party: The fiscal conservatives, the social/christian conservatives, the tea partiers, and the libertarians, possibly. Yes, there's some cross over, but there's also some gridlock.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2011, 09:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I did, if he's rebutted this I haven't seen it yet. I'm starting to wonder if Big Mac is really Abe, cause it's hard to get him to answer direct questions without writing essays about other stuff.
Didn't YOU claim to be Abe ?

-t
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2011, 09:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Wiskedjak, we spent around 2.2 Trillion in 2001 and ran a deficit even back then. Today we take in 2.7 Trillion in revenue, but we spend 3.5 Trillion. If we could scale spending back to its 2001 level, we'd run large surpluses based on the current tax code.

OAW, I have you on ignore. The Entitlements are unconstitutional. The New Deal was unconstitutional and only through illegal intimidation of the Supreme Court did FDR get a stamp of approval. Intimidation of a coequal branch to get your way doesn't equal constitutionality. It's tyranny, and just because it's become institutionalized tyranny taken for granted over a number of generations doesn't make it any less tyrannical and unconstitutional. So don't tell me they're constitutional, please - it's insulting to the common decency.
And are the price of things today the same as 2001? Or is government magically immune to increased prices and inflation.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2011, 09:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Wiskedjak, we spent around 2.2 Trillion in 2001 and ran a deficit even back then. Today we take in 2.7 Trillion in revenue, but we spend 3.5 Trillion. If we could scale spending back to its 2001 level, we'd run large surpluses based on the current tax code.
True, but some things have changed since 2001. For example, the US probably wasn't spending $20B per year on air conditioning in Afghanistan.

Your willingness to ignore some cost increases while pointing the finger at others is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Politicians from *both* sides need to compromise, and the incentive to compromise needs to come from the voters. You need to demand politicians who are willing to think beyond 2012 and compromise on some of their fundamentalist principles.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2011, 09:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Didn't YOU claim to be Abe ?

-t


More than one person can be Abe... Duh!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2011, 09:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
OAW, I have you on ignore.
Why? Weren't you calling me narrow minded earlier in this thread?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2011, 10:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
True, but some things have changed since 2001. For example, the US probably wasn't spending $20B per year on air conditioning in Afghanistan.

Your willingness to ignore some cost increases while pointing the finger at others is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Politicians from *both* sides need to compromise, and the incentive to compromise needs to come from the voters. You need to demand politicians who are willing to think beyond 2012 and compromise on some of their fundamentalist principles.
I'm not selectively ignoring cost increases in some areas pointing the finger in other areas. I'm talking about what the biggest drivers of our deficits and debt are. $20 Billion for air conditioning in Afghanistan should be cut out if that's what we spend on, but that's chump change compared to what is most costly and must be cut most urgently.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2011, 10:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Why? Weren't you calling me narrow minded earlier in this thread?
I don't see how those two are mutually exclusive...

-t
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, Washington
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2011, 10:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
mitchell, do you know what the top tax rate was when the income tax was first instituted in 1913-1915? The top rate was 7%, which kicked in above $500,000. And when it was instituted the country was assured that the rate would never go higher.
Oh, surprise, an elected official lied. Let me go cry in the corner.

I know that the federal government is an enormous beast compared to what it was back then, but why is it your presumption that taxes need to be anywhere near the rates they're currently at?
Well, probably because our government won't stop bleeding money even if they cut out bull crap. I'm certain you understand the way loans work, and the fact that the US has expensive loans to pay off, and that we are barely even making the interest right now on most of our loans. Unless you're suggesting that the US government start selling candy bars, the only way we can get out of those loans is to 1) pay them off or 2), the current option, default.
Why is it your presumption that legalized theft backed by the hugely coercive force of government that can deprive you of your liberty if you don't comply is such a wonderful thing?
What the heck are you on about? Since time immemorial there have been taxes levied on those who do not hold the power.
Why do you believe it's right for your government to take from your wealthy fellow citizens at very high rates, as opposed to your government cutting itself back down to its constitutionally appropriate levels of spending, commensurate with its constitutional duties?
Uh, did I say I believed that? No.
Do you think that because you make a pittance every year it's right to rob your neighbor who makes a great or even astronomical living?
Didn't say that either. I make no mention of tax increases for the rich, now did I?
What gives you that apparently arbitrary right to disproportionately punish other people's success and profit motives? And if you personally don't have that right as an individual, what makes you believe government collectively has that right?
What gives you the right to add on to what I said? Nothing at all. So stop doing it, and stop acting like a complete imbecile, even when people agree with what you are saying. Or is that too "Islamist" or "left-wing?" Hint: I didn't vote for Obama.
Also, what makes you believe higher tax increases on the so-called "rich" is the most effective way at closing our deficits?
Again, I never, ever said that tax increases for a small group of people was the solution. I'd appreciate if you'd understand that.
We bring in hundreds of billions of dollars more in revenue to the federal government than we did ten years ago, but we sadly spend about $1.3 trillion more than we did back then. It's not a revenue problem because we're collecting more revenue under the Bush rates than before. It's a spending disease.
Did you even read what I said? I don't think so.
And yet higher taxes on a small subet of our population isn't going to solve the spending disease we have. You could take the so-called "rich" (those making $250,000 and above) at 100% top marginal rate and you still wouldn't close a single year's current budget deficit.
Again, I never called for tax increases for the rich. In fact, you may notice I said that I'd gladly pay more taxes if it meant that it actually went to debt/loan reductions. And I'm below the poverty line by US standards.

There is, in fact, widespread agreement that tax hikes are in general the wrong way to deal with the deficit/debt crisis. Look at the Simpson-Bowles commission recommendation to simplify the tax code (remove deductions), lower the marginal rates and flatten the tax base (have more of the country pay some kind of income tax again). This was the recommendation of a bipartisan group of lawmakers that President Obama assembled. And this commission did not call for higher taxes on the "rich."
Like I said, I completely agree that there needs to be massive spending cuts. But I also don't see how we can come out of this without gaining new taxes. And those don't have to be income taxes, mind you. If I were to go out and buy a new car, at say $199 a month, and couldn't afford it, would I be able to afford it more if I got a job where I make less money and work less? No. So how can the US continue to give tax breaks and yet still keep paying the same interest payments that we currently are stuck in?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2011, 10:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
I'm not selectively ignoring cost increases in some areas pointing the finger in other areas. I'm talking about what the biggest drivers of our deficits and debt are. $20 Billion for air conditioning in Afghanistan should be cut out if that's what we spend on, but that's chump change compared to what is most costly and must be cut most urgently.
$20B / year alone on AC in Afghanistan is, indeed, chump change. However, there are MANY other similar costs that accompany it which were not being incurred prior to 2001.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2011, 11:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
OAW, I have you on ignore.
BS! You continue to make this claim yet "magically" you manage to reference my posts that you supposedly don't see. And before you expose your dishonesty even further ... you really ought to realize that in this post right here you managed to DIRECTLY QUOTE these comments of mine:

Originally Posted by OAW
It is if the US continues to pay on time. But of course, with the GOP playing chicken with the debt ceiling ....
Originally Posted by OAW
Entitlement reform is a must. But again, that's a long-term deficit driver....
Now everyone can see that no one else quoted those comments of mine at all BEFORE YOU DID. So you can't claim that you saw them in someone else's post that you don't have on "ignore". Seriously dude .... just cut it out.

Originally Posted by Big Mac
The Entitlements are unconstitutional. The New Deal was unconstitutional and only through illegal intimidation of the Supreme Court did FDR get a stamp of approval. Intimidation of a coequal branch to get your way doesn't equal constitutionality. It's tyranny, and just because it's become institutionalized tyranny taken for granted over a number of generations doesn't make it any less tyrannical and unconstitutional. So don't tell me they're constitutional, please - it's insulting to the common decency.
Again. The Entitlement Programs are constitutional because the Supreme Court said they are. Multiple times. They certainly aren't unconstitutional simply because you say so. There's a conservative majority on the Supreme Court now. Yet somehow they haven't overturned it. Imagine that.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Jul 12, 2011 at 11:06 PM. )
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2011, 11:07 PM
 
Pfff, the Supreme Court said so ?

That doesn't mean they're not bankrupting the nation.
All the Supreme Court confirmed that politicians can legally run the country to the ground.

-t
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2011, 11:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Pfff, the Supreme Court said so ?

That doesn't mean they're not bankrupting the nation.
All the Supreme Court confirmed that politicians can legally run the country to the ground.

-t
Perhaps. But that's a different issue. My only point on this particular tangent is that the constitutionality of entitlement programs as a matter of law is settled. They have been explicitly ruled to be constitutional and that's simply a fact until such time as the Supreme Court decides to overturn these earlier decisions. Again, everyone ... Big Mac included ... is entitled to their own opinion when it comes to whether the Supreme Court rulings were good or bad. But everyone is NOT entitled to their own facts.

OAW
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 01:28 AM
 
Inflation, everything costs more now then it did in 2001.....
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 01:40 AM
 
besson3c is wondering if anybody will answer his question.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 06:59 AM
 
Nobody heard it in the first place! We're too busy talking at each other to actually listen to anyone else.

(Also a good summary of Debt Ceiling politics).
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 07:23 AM
 
Its time to remove some federal agencies. Those that have become political and that seem to only cost money, and never shows any great improvements. Lets start with the Dept of Ed., HHS, HUD. Let the states do the work. FCC, EPA, DOE all need to be reduced by about 80 percent. DOE should just be shut, as it NEVER did what it was supposed to do. The Dept of State could use some reductions as well.

The gov't needs to be smaller, with less people to screw things up.

All the spending bills going back to 2000 need to be reviewed and parts repealed.

None of the politicians or their staffs should be paid until the debt talks are resolved. Same for the White House staff.

No new taxes. Do not raise the Debt either. Its going to be up to Owe-bama to pick and choose who he's gonna pay. Lets see who he pisses off first. Probably the old people again, as that seems to be what they do every time, scare old people.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 08:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Its time to remove some federal agencies. Those that have become political and that seem to only cost money, and never shows any great improvements. Lets start with the Dept of Ed., HHS, HUD. Let the states do the work. FCC, EPA, DOE all need to be reduced by about 80 percent. DOE should just be shut, as it NEVER did what it was supposed to do. The Dept of State could use some reductions as well.

The gov't needs to be smaller, with less people to screw things up.

All the spending bills going back to 2000 need to be reviewed and parts repealed.

None of the politicians or their staffs should be paid until the debt talks are resolved. Same for the White House staff.

No new taxes. Do not raise the Debt either. Its going to be up to Owe-bama to pick and choose who he's gonna pay. Lets see who he pisses off first. Probably the old people again, as that seems to be what they do every time, scare old people.
Yet another example of trying to use this issue for political gain rather than proposing a plan that would actually fix things.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 09:02 AM
 
In my opinion, the problem has nothing to do with how different political ideologies manage money, and everything to do with political systems where the politicians (and their fundamentalist supporters) are focused more on making the other side look bad than they are on making things better.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 09:09 AM
 
Here, I'll put this in moronic terms:

Reducing debt = Losing weight
Spending cuts = dieting
Increasing revenue = exercise

So, what's the best way to lose weight?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 09:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Yet another example of trying to use this issue for political gain rather than proposing a plan that would actually fix things.
Politicians are the ones who BROKE THE SYSTEM, they will have to fix it. Sure it's political. The current political dick in the WH is out to ruin the US by overwhelming the systems in place. Having him stop pissing away trillions is a first step. cutting the funds illegally being spent to prop up Owe-bamakare and the bill itself need to be repealed. Raising taxes doesn't solve the problem. They will just waste that money too.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 09:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Here, I'll put this in moronic terms:

Reducing debt = Losing weight
Spending cuts = dieting
Increasing revenue = exercise

So, what's the best way to lose weight?
Liposuction!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 09:38 AM
 
Protein and fat.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 09:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Here, I'll put this in moronic terms:

Reducing debt = Losing weight
Spending cuts = dieting
Increasing revenue = exercise

So, what's the best way to lose weight?
Those are failed analogies.We don't have a revenue problem in this country. Revenues (i.e. wealth confiscated through taxation) to the federal government are robust. We have a spending crisis. Tax increases will just further hurt tax payers (including businesses) who don't get the giant tax breaks in our corrupt tax code that major corporations get. Tax reform that lowers rates (both corporate and individual) while broadening the tax base makes a lot of sense and would increase revenue, but you can't ignore the central fact that it's the spending that's out of control.

Note to self: You're wasting your time trying to debate politics with The Final Dakar.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Jul 13, 2011 at 09:50 AM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 09:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
Liposuction!
I believe that's increasing the debt ceiling?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 09:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Note to self: You're wasting your time trying to debate politics with The Final Dakar.
This is funny.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 09:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I believe that's increasing the debt ceiling?
No, increasing the debt ceiling is convincing yourself that you're not really fat, so you do nothing to fix the situation, and get fatter.

Liposuction is vacuuming up fat; so it's more like not increasing the debt ceiling, and forcing the government to only live in what it takes in in revenue.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 10:05 AM
 
Did you guys hear that we have a spending problem and not a revenue problem?

No?

Well, we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

And we also have a spending problem and not a revenue problem.

By the way, we have a spending problem and not a revenue problem.

Speaking of, we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

And of course there is the fact that we have a spending problem and not a revenue problem.

Plus, we have a spending problem and not a revenue problem.

Have I repeated this oversimplified talking point enough to make you believe it yet?

No?

Well, have I mentioned that we have a spending problem and not a revenue problem?

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 10:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Those are failed analogies.We don't have a revenue problem in this country. Revenues (i.e. wealth confiscated through taxation) to the federal government are robust. We have a spending crisis. Tax increases will just further hurt tax payers (including businesses) who don't get the giant tax breaks in our corrupt tax code that major corporations get. Tax reform that lowers rates (both corporate and individual) while broadening the tax base makes a lot of sense and would increase revenue, but you can't ignore the central fact that it's the spending that's out of control.
Yeah, much like with iMitchell, you misconstrued what I was communicating.

Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Note to self: You're wasting your time trying to debate politics with The Final Dakar.
Heh, how often do we even run into each other in the PL? Still the statement gains unintentional comedy points for your increasing you post from two to seven sentences after typing this.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
This is funny.
It strikes me as a little random.

Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
No, increasing the debt ceiling is convincing yourself that you're not really fat, so you do nothing to fix the situation, and get fatter.

Liposuction is vacuuming up fat; so it's more like not increasing the debt ceiling, and forcing the government to only live in what it takes in in revenue.
I was thinking increasing ceiling = making more room = liposuction, but I guess it'd be more akin to adding more skin for you to fill with fat.

Hang on, getting nauseous.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 10:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
It strikes me as a little random.
Which is why I find it funny. Makes no sense whatsoever.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 10:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
Well, have I mentioned that we have a spending problem and not a revenue problem?
Why does it have to be one and not the other? Why is it that we don't have both problems?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 11:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
Why does it have to be one and not the other? Why is it that we don't have both problems?
Or neither? Which is another way of saying "both" really. We don't have a spending problem. We don't have a revenue problem. We have a deficit problem. Which is a function of the two. Those that focus on one part of the equation or the other are regurgitating simplistic talking points to say the least. The more intelligent approach would be to decide collectively as the American people what government services we want and then devising a tax system that brings in enough revenue to pay for them. That way we don't have a deficit problem. Indiscriminately slashing government spending with a chainsaw isn't the answer because you'd end up gutting popular government programs and services. Blindly raising taxes isn't the answer either because you'd end up funding stupid programs along with wasteful and overlapping government services. And increasing government spending while cutting taxes is about the dumbest approach ever from a fiscal standpoint. Of course that was GOP policy for the last decade ... and now that it's come time to pay the piper they want to act like we didn't notice.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Jul 13, 2011 at 11:33 AM. )
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 12:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
besson3c is wondering if anybody will answer his question.
Question - singular ?

You asked 6 questionS(!).
I answered some of them, but maybe you just didn't like the answers, so you conveniently ignored it.

-t
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 12:10 PM
 
Yup, I also answered him with a pointed response to his question about taxation, but he apparently didn't like the answer.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 01:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Politicians are the ones who BROKE THE SYSTEM, they will have to fix it. Sure it's political.
Sorry, but if you expect politicians to fix the the system, I suspect you'll be forever disappointed (or, you'll just turn a blind eye to the problems when you're politicians of choice are in power) m

Yes, the politicians broke the system. But, they've broken it in ways that benefits them and they will have no incentive to fix the system if voters will continue to vote for the status quo of their party. Nothing will change unless voters demand it. Ask yourself honestly, would the debt issue be any different had McCain won the election? Seems to me that it would only have been different by a few billion dollars (chump change,as Big Mac would say).
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 03:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Sorry, but if you expect politicians to fix the the system, I suspect you'll be forever disappointed (or, you'll just turn a blind eye to the problems when you're politicians of choice are in power) m

Yes, the politicians broke the system. But, they've broken it in ways that benefits them and they will have no incentive to fix the system if voters will continue to vote for the status quo of their party. Nothing will change unless voters demand it. Ask yourself honestly, would the debt issue be any different had McCain won the election? Seems to me that it would only have been different by a few billion dollars (chump change,as Big Mac would say).
VOTERS DEMAND IT!!! LOL Unless threatened with physical harm, NONE of the current political hacks will change. What do you suggest, wait until the US is in chaos and take up arms against them? Politicians hate to be under the microscope, and that might be the only way to keep them in line.

McCain wouldn't have introduced OwebamaKare, so remove another couple of trillion. The Auto take-overs wouldn't have happened either. Let them go bankrupt so they could renegociate the unions contracts or decide not to deal with unions all together.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 04:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Its time to remove some federal agencies. Those that have become political and that seem to only cost money, and never shows any great improvements. Lets start with the Dept of Ed., HHS, HUD. Let the states do the work. FCC, EPA, DOE.
Then let's continue by evaporating the DEA and end the pointless war on drugs. Spend money on treatment rather than incarceration.

Also, removing the Dept of ED should be great for states that already have terrible school systems and a general uneducated populace. Doesn't bother me, because the state I live in puts a large emphasis on education and it shows.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 04:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
The Auto take-overs wouldn't have happened either. Let them go bankrupt so they could renegociate the unions contracts or decide not to deal with unions all together.
Retarded, not a single candidate from either party would have let GM and Chrysler go bankrupt. The fact you think your beloved republican party wouldn't have bailed out any gigantic institution, whether it be banks or car companies, shows just how deluded you are.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 05:04 PM
 
Didn't the Auto Industry bailout begin under Bush?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 05:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
VOTERS DEMAND IT!!! LOL Unless threatened with physical harm, NONE of the current political hacks will change. What do you suggest, wait until the US is in chaos and take up arms against them? Politicians hate to be under the microscope, and that might be the only way to keep them in line.
I suggest that voters get off their lazy a$$es and start taking greater interest in how their politicians are working, beyond what the politicians and their hired talking heads are telling the voters to be interested in.

What do you suggest?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, Washington
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 06:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Those are failed analogies.We don't have a revenue problem in this country.
Oh really? $7 spent for every $1 of revenue doesn't seem like a problem to you?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 07:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
cut medicare because old people can't fight back
Oh, but they CAN. They're the single largest voting bloc, and AARP is one of the most effective lobbying organizations.
He can be fixed -- you can't.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 07:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
Oh really? $7 spent for every $1 of revenue doesn't seem like a problem to you?
This is what I'm still trying to understand...

It sounds like people like Big Mac want to be super aggressive in reducing our entitlement spending to a fraction of what it is today, but even if this did make sense to the extent in which Big Mac would advocate it is certainly not going to happen overnight. The how do we get from point A to point B is what I'm struggling to understand, as well as doing so without costing us even more both ultimately and/or in the process.

For the time being, for right now, the ratio of spending to revenue is a problem. Whether you say that the problem is that the spending side of the ratio is too high and that is it, or the revenue side is too small, both are technically accurate, but either way you need a concrete plan that will get us there, understanding you need a means to the end.

To me BIg Mac's ideas are to ideological and philosophical and not practical. To me, doing what both the Republicans and Democrats are trying to do now is the way to go: gradually bringing things back into check.

The question I was asking before that hasn't been answered other than Big Mac (waiting for his source) is as follows:

Have the Bush tax cuts improved the lives of the middle class by way of increasing income and/or creating jobs?
( Last edited by besson3c; Jul 13, 2011 at 08:04 PM. )
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 08:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
Oh really? $7 spent for every $1 of revenue doesn't seem like a problem to you?
Of course it's a problem, but none that can be fixed with more revenue.

It's like telling a dead-beat with maxed out credit cards to just get a job that pays more. How's that for a plan ?

-t
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 09:15 PM
 
I heard on the news about congressmen (I'm assuming Democrats given the nature of topic) closing all business tax loopholes, to the tune of $1.2 trillion in revenue.

That's great, and all, but it's not going to go very far unless they also reduce spending. How about a "no pork for 1 year" bill.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 09:20 PM
 
Can anyone explain to me why every single expenditure of the federal government can't be cut across the board by a specific percentage that will allow us to run some level of surpluses to start paying back the principal on our massive debt? We used to be a mighty creditor nation that loaned other countries money. But over the last 50 years, we've become the biggest debtor nation in real dollar terms by far, despite our GDP being the highest in the world. I'm absolutely sick of it. And I'm sick of anyone who doesn't take this seriously - either those who argue for the bankrupting status quo or those who argue for non-solutions like yet higher taxes on the "rich" who already pay a hugely disproportionate share of the income tax burden.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Jul 13, 2011 at 09:44 PM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:40 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2