Fixing the budget problem

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>we do not need to raise taxes!

OK then. Are you OK with eliminating the US military? Because that's the level of cuts you're talking about if you want to do it without tax increases.

Your assurtions here simply is not true

Your budget analysis is a good match for your spelling and grammar.

And you avoiding an honest exchange is a demonstration of arrogance

Nothing new here so you can move along

Why don't YOU give us YOUR analysis instead of just telling Bill that he is wrong. Numbers please.

Right after you answer years worth of questions you avoid here

Funny shit dude

Funny shit

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,990]

>I am all for reducing the budget of all fed agencies by 20% and eliminating all
>agencies that are duplicated.

OK, now you have cut $260 billion. $1340 billion to go.

>Cut all welfare programs to any households that have Illegals living in them

OK, you've cut another $100 billion, but you've also increased enforcement costs by $50 billion. So $1290 billion to go.

>fining any business that hires illegals a sum equal to 1.5 times what they paid the
>illegals they hired, and fining all medical facilities double what the total medicare
>payments they collected for any medicare fraud.

OK, so you want to expand government oversight of hospitals and farms. Since farms pay illegals next to nothing, then you will get next to nothing from the farm effort. And if you eliminate every single bit of Medicare fraud, you've saved $60 billion dollars, at the cost of another $20 billion in government programs to detect the infractions, fine the people, support the court cases, process the paperwork etc.

$1250 billion to go.

>this would come close to fixing the issue and we could tweak it later.

Where would the other $1250 billion come from?

[mirage62 0]

Maybe a better question to all this, Bill is who believes that taxes RAISED would go to lower the deficit? You have expressed your belief that the problem can only be solved by raising taxes and cutting spending. Other than yourself and a few others in this forum these of us that seem to at the top of the tax rates are equally sure that the current administration wants much more spending for social programs.

If history is any indicator any new revenues raised by taxes will get spilt between new (or old) social programs and the deficit and THAT’s where we have a emotionally violate reaction

Whereas many here have bought into the class warfare that "the rich should pay more" they forget or just don't seem to get that they do already.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[billvon 2,990]

>who believes that taxes RAISED would go to lower the deficit?

You could say the same thing about cutting programs. Who believes that cutting programs would go towards lowering the deficit, instead of just more tax breaks for the rich?

Answer - probably neither side. So we do all of it together, in one bill, either passed as one bill or rejected as one bill.

If you could do that - could guarantee that the tax increased and spending cuts would be inextricably linked - would you support it?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>who believes that taxes RAISED would go to lower the deficit?

You could say the same thing about cutting programs. Who believes that cutting programs would go towards lowering the deficit, instead of just more tax breaks for the rich?

Answer - probably neither side. So we do all of it together, in one bill, either passed as one bill or rejected as one bill.

If you could do that - could guarantee that the tax increased and spending cuts would be inextricably linked - would you support it?

No
Because no amount of tax increases will even touch todays spending (and on a side note the fed is talking about another stimulus)

Spending cuts and economic growth is the way out of this mess. Tax increases will not help the economy grow. Your plan would cancel itself out

And you could confiscate all the money the top (pick your percentage here) money holders here in the US and it would not even dent the problem

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mirage62 0]

Quote

If you could do that - could guarantee that the tax increased and spending cuts would be inextricably linked - would you support it?

Yes - of course the "guarantee" is the problem.

I'd like to see a 2% tax on the top 2/3 of people that aren't paying any tax...but that's wishful thinking.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[Bolas 5]

Quote

>who believes that taxes RAISED would go to lower the deficit?

You could say the same thing about cutting programs. Who believes that cutting programs would go towards lowering the deficit, instead of just more tax breaks for the rich?

Answer - probably neither side. So we do all of it together, in one bill, either passed as one bill or rejected as one bill.

If you could do that - could guarantee that the tax increased and spending cuts would be inextricably linked - would you support it?

So if the spending cuts ended or were nullified by later bills, the tax increase ended?

Hmmm...

I think the concern is that even if the bill went through as one and was approved, the tax increases would stay but the spending cuts would seemingly dissipate rather quickly.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>I am all for reducing the budget of all fed agencies by 20% and eliminating all
>agencies that are duplicated.

OK, now you have cut $260 billion. $1340 billion to go.

>Cut all welfare programs to any households that have Illegals living in them

OK, you've cut another $100 billion, but you've also increased enforcement costs by $50 billion. So $1290 billion to go.

>fining any business that hires illegals a sum equal to 1.5 times what they paid the
>illegals they hired, and fining all medical facilities double what the total medicare
>payments they collected for any medicare fraud.

OK, so you want to expand government oversight of hospitals and farms. Since farms pay illegals next to nothing, then you will get next to nothing from the farm effort. And if you eliminate every single bit of Medicare fraud, you've saved $60 billion dollars, at the cost of another $20 billion in government programs to detect the infractions, fine the people, support the court cases, process the paperwork etc.

$1250 billion to go.

>this would come close to fixing the issue and we could tweak it later.

Where would the other $1250 billion come from?

last I heard 20% of 3.6 trillion is 720 billion but since you can't cut the interest payment we will consider 20% to be about 620 billion cut of everything the feds are responsible to pay. and since Illegal imigration costs california 20-30 billion alone we could round off to about 100 billion for the country that is 720 billion so far. plus illimination of all duplicated programs and all fed money going to countries that vote against in the UN would be a few billion more. Open the oil fields in the US would reduce our trade deficit to opec nations plus putting americans back to work bringing in additional tax revenue from the oil companies and workers now working. plus that would reduce welfare programs. now we are talking about 800-900 billion in as little as 6 months.

As far as the debt goes we could print enough money to pay all foriegn investers that hold our debt and use the interest money to pay the debt off that the treasury would now hold.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

As far as the debt goes we could print enough money to pay

see, you had me with you and then somehow this was puked up

ouch

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

>who believes that taxes RAISED would go to lower the deficit?

You could say the same thing about cutting programs. Who believes that cutting programs would go towards lowering the deficit, instead of just more tax breaks for the rich?

Answer - probably neither side. So we do all of it together, in one bill, either passed as one bill or rejected as one bill.

If you could do that - could guarantee that the tax increased and spending cuts would be inextricably linked - would you support it?

No
Because no amount of tax increases will even touch todays spending (and on a side note the fed is talking about another stimulus)

Spending cuts and economic growth is the way out of this mess. Tax increases will not help the economy grow. Your plan would cancel itself out

Bogus argument. The economy grew pretty well at a time when taxes were higher than now.

Still waiting for details of YOUR analysis.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>who believes that taxes RAISED would go to lower the deficit?

You could say the same thing about cutting programs. Who believes that cutting programs would go towards lowering the deficit, instead of just more tax breaks for the rich?

Answer - probably neither side. So we do all of it together, in one bill, either passed as one bill or rejected as one bill.

If you could do that - could guarantee that the tax increased and spending cuts would be inextricably linked - would you support it?

No
Because no amount of tax increases will even touch todays spending (and on a side note the fed is talking about another stimulus)

Spending cuts and economic growth is the way out of this mess. Tax increases will not help the economy grow. Your plan would cancel itself out

Bogus argument. The economy grew pretty well at a time when taxes were higher than now.

Still waiting for details of YOUR analysis.

You must enjoy being wrong

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[grimmie 186]

20 years ago I said we would need a telethon to save America some day. I wonder if Jerry Lewis can emcee.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

As far as the debt goes we could print enough money to pay

see, you had me with you and then somehow this was puked up

ouch

it was not to devalue the dollar just get rid of foriegn owned debt but would be paid back with the money that was paying the interest on the debt. It would be the treasury paying off debt with the government paying the principle back over a shorter period of time. It was an Idea that I thought of but I do not know what or if this was possible. It would devalue the dollar at first but instead of paying interest to china and others we would use that money to pay back the treasury and take that money out of circulation as it is paid back. This would increase the strength of the dollar over time. I did not say to print money to just to print money but to acomplish a goal that would stenthen our future buy getting foriegners out of our pockets caused by our debt.

we would also need to pass a law that foriegners cannot buy US government debt anymore. this would make the feds live within the means that they have.

[Bolas 5]

Devaluing the dollar to pay off the debt? That'd certainly piss off any foreign investors.

Would certainly lead to more entirely US made products as foreign items would be insanely expensive.

Here ya go China, here's that $3 trillion we owe ya. Of course it's now only worth what used to have been $3 billion.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 2,990]

>Yes - of course the "guarantee" is the problem.

Cool. It's good to see that some people could agree to that sort of compromise; that's the only way we can make any progress on this problem.

[billvon 2,990]

>it was not to devalue the dollar just get rid of foriegn owned debt

Well, heck, if printing money doesn't devalue the dollar, just print 1.6 trillion, pay off everyone and we're done! No spending cuts and no tax increases.

>I did not say to print money to just to print money but to acomplish a goal that
>would stenthen our future buy getting foriegners out of our pockets caused by our
>debt.

Why does it matter who owns the debt? We have to pay it back in any case, whether the person who ultimately owns it is names Smith or Chen.

[frequentfaller 0]

everybody leaves out the part about balancing budget + get re-elected at same time.

Born ok 1st time.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>it was not to devalue the dollar just get rid of foriegn owned debt

Well, heck, if printing money doesn't devalue the dollar, just print 1.6 trillion, pay off everyone and we're done! No spending cuts and no tax increases.

>I did not say to print money to just to print money but to acomplish a goal that
>would stenthen our future buy getting foriegners out of our pockets caused by our
>debt.

Why does it matter who owns the debt? We have to pay it back in any case, whether the person who ultimately owns it is names Smith or Chen.

would you rather pay interest to china or principle to the treasury directly paying down the debt?

[billvon 2,990]

>would you rather pay interest to china or principle to the treasury directly paying down
>the debt?

I'd rather pay down the debt. That can't happen without massive spending cuts AND tax increases. (And no, "just printing money" doesn't work.)

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>who believes that taxes RAISED would go to lower the deficit?

You could say the same thing about cutting programs. Who believes that cutting programs would go towards lowering the deficit, instead of just more tax breaks for the rich?

Answer - probably neither side. So we do all of it together, in one bill, either passed as one bill or rejected as one bill.

If you could do that - could guarantee that the tax increased and spending cuts would be inextricably linked - would you support it?

No
Because no amount of tax increases will even touch todays spending (and on a side note the fed is talking about another stimulus)

Spending cuts and economic growth is the way out of this mess. Tax increases will not help the economy grow. Your plan would cancel itself out

Bogus argument. The economy grew pretty well at a time when taxes were higher than now.

Still waiting for details of YOUR analysis.

You must enjoy being wrong

Are you claiming that the economy didn't grow when taxes were higher than now? Really?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[hwt 0]

I have a better idea...Let us lower the debt ceiling cut taxes and get rid of all subsidies and i mean all of them.
Cut this government in half . get the government the fuck out of our lives.
One thing is for sure , DO NOT RAISE THE DEBT CEILING .
The government can pay for ss , medicare , medicaid the military and interest on the current debt. with a trillion to spare with what it is bringing in now ...

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>who believes that taxes RAISED would go to lower the deficit?

You could say the same thing about cutting programs. Who believes that cutting programs would go towards lowering the deficit, instead of just more tax breaks for the rich?

Answer - probably neither side. So we do all of it together, in one bill, either passed as one bill or rejected as one bill.

If you could do that - could guarantee that the tax increased and spending cuts would be inextricably linked - would you support it?

No
Because no amount of tax increases will even touch todays spending (and on a side note the fed is talking about another stimulus)

Spending cuts and economic growth is the way out of this mess. Tax increases will not help the economy grow. Your plan would cancel itself out

Bogus argument. The economy grew pretty well at a time when taxes were higher than now.

Still waiting for details of YOUR analysis.

You must enjoy being wrong

Are you claiming that the economy didn't grow when taxes were higher than now? Really?

I dont know. Is that what I am doing?

Guess you are going to have to tell me

At least you are good for something

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,990]

>Cut this government in half . get the government the fuck out of our lives.
>One thing is for sure , DO NOT RAISE THE DEBT CEILING .

It is ironic indeed that in another thread, when Obama said that not raising the debt ceiling would result in reduced benefits, you called it "political bullshit", called him a "clown" for even suggesting that.

Would you apply the same descriptors to your calls to do the same thing, given that they won't even make a dent in the deficit?

[masterrig 1]

Quote

>I am all for reducing the budget of all fed agencies by 20% and eliminating all
>agencies that are duplicated.

OK, now you have cut $260 billion. $1340 billion to go.

>Cut all welfare programs to any households that have Illegals living in them

OK, you've cut another $100 billion, but you've also increased enforcement costs by $50 billion. So $1290 billion to go.

>fining any business that hires illegals a sum equal to 1.5 times what they paid the
>illegals they hired, and fining all medical facilities double what the total medicare
>payments they collected for any medicare fraud.

OK, so you want to expand government oversight of hospitals and farms. Since farms pay illegals next to nothing, then you will get next to nothing from the farm effort. And if you eliminate every single bit of Medicare fraud, you've saved $60 billion dollars, at the cost of another $20 billion in government programs to detect the infractions, fine the people, support the court cases, process the paperwork etc.

$1250 billion to go.

>this would come close to fixing the issue and we could tweak it later.

Where would the other $1250 billion come from?

What about cutting-out all the 'pork barrelling'? All these government grants for paved bicycle trails and 'free' dumpsters for clean-up activities and all the other 'special interests', for examples? Politicians would have to work for their positions instead of getting frivilous spending through 'riders' on imortant bills. Maybe, we do, need for the President to have a line item veto!?
Maybe, an across the board 'equal' tax. If, the little guy is paying $xxx in taxes, the wealthy pays the same percentage, rather than the non-wealthy carrying the burden and cut-out the loop-holes. Or is that too simple for the politicians to understand?
I don't know... just some thoughts.


Chuck

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>would you rather pay interest to china or principle to the treasury directly paying down
>the debt?

I'd rather pay down the debt. That can't happen without massive spending cuts AND tax increases. (And no, "just printing money" doesn't work.)

Why doesn't the government just decide to eliminate federal income taxes for 1 year? Then people will have more money to spend which will create jobs, reducing unemployment and the revenue will pour into the IRS after the year. Makes more sense to me than the government using money to target pork projects in return for political favors.