700 billions dollar debt increase is the republican's first goal.

How bout a 10% (or more) cut in across the board salaries of the supposed representatives in government? You know, the "business" decisions made against middle America the right is always clammering about (you know..the market).

 

.

 

So, basically, it is not that I don't have ideas...it is that the ideas don't line up with the Republican talking points...which is a line of BS that we can somehow erase a 1.27 trillion dollar yearly deficit by a vague 'cutting spending' without increasing revenue.

In order to cut the yearly deficit in half, there would have to be an across the board cut of 50% for discretionary spending...and that includes defense (which is discretionary spending).

Oh, and in case you don't know the numbers, a 100 to 200 billion savings in defense that I propose is about a 15 to 30% cut...not even close to a vague 10%. Which, by the way, would still leave defense spending about 100 to 200 billion dollar greater than it was before Iraq and Afghanistan entered the picture.

 

See, you're taking all of this personal. I wasn't suggesting any sort of Republican talking point or even talking from a Rep point of view...you just assumed that because you were looking for an argument. I am looking at this issue from a "what would I do" point of view if I had a financial worry in my own household. I would simply cut my spending & freeze add'l spending until I had the money in the bank to pay for it. And I wouldn't place add'l burdens on the people who weren't complicit in the fiasco in the first place (the taxpayers). What is there to argue about?

 

Well...you are the one who said "These are things the TEA Party has advocated"...

And, truthfully, I believe most Tea Party candidates are the absolute worst about calling for vague spending cuts and decreased taxes as some way to tackle the budget deficit.

 

Less than 13 billion dollars (which is their projected 2011 budget) and realistically probably much less than that considering the govt is still going to have to administer a "fair tax". But even at 100% elimination of the IRS, it still leaves 373 billion to make up versus eliminating the Bush stimulus.

 

I don't necessarily believe the TEA Party & Republicans are synonomous, for one. Do you disagree with what I posted simply because you believe it to be a TEA Party or Republican ideal?
Let me also address your "vague" reference to cost cutting. I believe the folks responsible for the spending & administration of the specific budgets would be the best ones to find the areas that can be cut. And maybe 10% isn't the right number but it would be a start. I'm sure some depts would be hard-pressed to find 10% to cut while others could do more.
I'll ask you again, what is the flawed thinking to cut current spending & not spending in the future unless we have the money?

 

Lets cut those guys (representatives in government) even more. Let them to be first to be signed up on Obamacare, instead of their premium health they are currently on.

 

Well, what party was listed next to 95% of the 'tea party' candidates on the ballots?


And, no, I don't disagree with it because it is a Republican ideal. I disagree with it because it is smoke and mirrors. There are purposefully being vague and relying on the fact that the people don't understand the numbers involved. And don;t understand the budget.

There is no flaw to cutting spending by 10%. It is the suggestion that cutting that amount and lowering taxes is going to solve anything when that 10% cut is so small a figure in our budget

10% of discretionary spending (the stuff they can cut with a budget) would be about 150 billion at most. That includes all the various departments and agencies in the government. Including defense.

That is barely a 10% reduction in yearly deficit. By doing that, we would go from 1.27 trillion yearly deficit to a 1.12 trillion yearly deficit next year.

Do you really see that as a solution? Even as a plan? I honestly find it hard to even consider that the beginning of a plan.

 

What you don't seem to want to acknowledge is that a 10% cut is the beginning of a plan, not the plan. And as I stated, maybe 10% isn't the real number. Maybe some aspects can be cut more than 10%. The FairTax would bring in more money to the gov't cofers....Across the board tax hikes are not the answer & pulling our troops home from overseas is not enough.

 

I will acknowledge that if it is the beginning of the plan, it is a pretty weak beginning.

One other thing...if the Fair Tax brings more money into the coffers...Isn't that the same thing as a tax increase? If a tax increase in the current system is going to be 'devastating', how can a tax increase in the Fair Tax system not be devastating? An increase with either is taking money from the people and giving it to the government.

 

Reducing spending is a weak beginning to addressing a deficit? Really?

As for the FairTax, I urge you to read up on it. Since the tax is on consumption & not what you earn (or report as earned), millions of people are brought into the system who didn't contribute before. No more loopholes or deductions and it's consistent across the board.

 

Yes, I would absolutely call reducing the 1.27 trillion yearly deficit next year to a 1.12 trillion yearly deficit next year (as I gave the numbers previously) as a weak beginning. Really.

And I have read plenty about the fair tax - and it has its merits - but still don't buy into it being somehow magically less 'devastating' than letting a stimulus plan expire. Either way, you take the money out of the economy and give it to the government.

 

Lower tax across the board and people will spend more simply because they have more disposable income in there pockets This in turn will generate over time higher tax returns but more than just that it will help create more jobs due to increased demand
The problem is that goverments have a habit of becomming greedy when they see a increase in sales they think OOOH more tax revenue so raise the tax levels

 

Once again, I urge you to really read the research. What impact would it have when you have millions of more people contributing? We're talking about people paid under the table, people who are tax cheats or abuse loopholes, criminals, foreign visitors, etc. The "pain" would be more evenly distributed and YOU would control your own tax burden by the amount you consume. So what if we have to pay a little higher tax rate at the cash register...you are already paying something plus you have to keep in mind that you are bringing home nearly every penny you earn. You control how much tax you pay based on your lifestyle.

 

You should read 'Broke' by Glenn Beck. He details a plan at the end of the book. Have also heard several radio hosts talk about the same points. You want cuts? The Department of Energy and the Department of Education could be shut down tomorrow and nobody would miss them. The Federal EPA could be shut down and nobody would miss them. Few people were ever for the Dept. of Education but it was passed anyway so as not to embarrass the president (Jimmy Carter at the time). The reason these programs could be eliminated is because these tasks are already handled on the state level in every state. It's duplication. The Dept. of Energy has done nothing for us. When they had that govt. shut down, 98% of them were sent home as being non-essential workers. We're still dependent on foreign oil. We still can't build any new nuclear power plants. There have been no new energy developments that are going to save us. So what has the money they consume done for us?

The DoD, has gobs of money to be saves. Hell, a few years ago, they lost track of $2 trillion dollars!! We still don't know where it went. They lose track of billions of dollars sent to Iraq every year. July 2010 the Pentagon admitted that it cannot account for $8.7 billion in Iraqi funds. They lose billions in nation building. Robert Gates himself has described many times how much waste there is here. He's trying to cut 102 billion in overhead from all branches combined this year.

Cut Federal housing programs. Cut Federal highway/mass transit. Cut Federal agricultural subsidies. USDA statistics show that the income of farm households is now higher than the national average. The largest 10% of recipients of agg subsidies collect 72% of all payments. A few large operators are getting a lot of cash. Many wealthy people are collecting them.

Identify improper payments. According to GAO, government made $98 billion in improper payments in 2009. The largest being Medicaid where $24 billion or nearly 8 cents of every dollar was improperly spent in 2009.

Social security needs to be PHASED OUT. Don't leave people empty handed. Deal with the people in the middle but end the program. At least give young people a chance to have something for their retirement. Like their own money! This MAY mean that eventually, people who paid nothing into it......wait for it..... I hope you're sitting down Moen......... won't get anything out of it someday!! And the government won't be responsible for them. But, you have to get back to reality at some point. Times are hard.

Once we see all the cuts in place and the debt coming down, then consider raising taxes as needed. Once people could see a real effort happening to pay down the debt and have real reform, people would go for it. To continue with business as usual and ask for another increase now? Forget it. I don't want to give them anything right now. The system is broken and nobody is politically able to deal with it.

Somebody disconnected from it all could come up with 100 billion here and 100 billion there pretty easily, until you did find a trillion. Unless hundreds of billions of waste and lost money is acceptable when dealing with figures this large??

Glenn makes a great point in that when states and cities spend ( or lose) money, everybody is all ears. Everybody pays great attention to it because they feel like it's their own money. When the feds spend, waste, lose money on their state, nobody cares because it seems like it's coming from somewhere else. Somebody else's state. And if they lose it? No big deal. They can simply print more. Which is why we need to decentralize power, and send it back to the states the way it used to be.

 

The only things the right ever runs on, besides hating gays and loving guns, tax cuts would be one of the staples. Lord knows where else you're headed on the other, but I digress, prey tell what, oh credentialed one............
__________________________________________
Cheap Hotels Kanyakumari | Kanyakumari Tourist Home | Kanyakumari Sunrise and Sunset

 

Shows you how bright you are, I don't pay into Social Security. Something else you may or may not figure out one day is that Glenn Beck is not an economist.

 

I was not talking about its effect on individuals, I was talking about its effect on the economy. The economy doesn't care much if I pay $10000 in taxes and you pay nothing or we each pay $5000. It means the same thing....$10000 goes to the government instead of directly into the economy to buy goods and services

Which is why I have a hard time buying that increasing tax revenue paid by one means is more or less devastating than increasing tax revenue paid by a different means.

 

I tend to agree with a lot of what you posted. We are going to have to address entitlement programs and defense and taxes. Otherwise, we are gong to be pee-ing into the wind. My problem is that I see no politicians really putting that reality out there with any kind of substance. It is all about 'cutting spending' like there are big cuts out there that can be made.

Hundreds of billions of spending cuts are hard to find when defense and Social Security and Medicaid are taken off the table. If you subtract entitlements, interest and defense, you are left with about 700 billion allocated for the entire rest of the government. Not a good number when the yearly deficit is over 1 trillion dollars. And even worse when you start talking about tax cuts.