It Was Only A Matter Of Time Before This Began.......

The great thing is no one paid for that. That was part of the 16 trillion dollars worth of free stuff we received.

 

But Teddy says "We don't pay nothing".

 

Oh, I know we will pay for it and are paying for it. But we act like we don't have to and that it makes no difference.

Just look at the difference between the Democrats and Republicans on the Bush/Obama 'Temporary' Tax Cuts. One plan will cost 300 billion, the other 370 billion to make them permanent. It makes for good rhetoric to say we are making the rich pay but the reality is that 70 billion is only about 6% of out yearly deficit.

Where do we get the rest if we are not going to make 99% of the people pay more taxes? Does it come from spending cuts then? Yeah, right.

I figure for long term health and to give our GDP a chance to catch up to our debt and at some point have the ratio fall, we probably have to cut our deficits nearly in half...and that still leaves them historically on the high side. So, we got the rich to pay for 6%...what's next.

 

Cut the massively bloated defense budget. Maybe it's the Merlot, I forgot that is a touchy subject with the cons.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/1226...ederal-workers-exorbitant-pay-for-contractors

Even at the height of the cold war our total military budget was less than half of what it is now.

 

ok so,

70,000,000,000 = 6% of x
70,000,000,000/.06 = x
x = approx. 1,200,000,000,000

so our yearly expenditure is about 1,200,000,000,000 according to your estimation.

if we take the $70,000,000,000 and add it to a 1/3 cut in military spending (which would still be over 2x China's budget) we would reduce the spending by $320,000,000,000 per annum. That would still leave us with $880,000,000,000 per annum expenditure. Social security is the second largest (both are effectively 20% of total). If we cut that entirely, we still couldn't zero it out.

 

Problem with your fancy math is that you turned "6% of out [our] yearly deficit" into "our yearly expenditure is about 1,200,000,000,000". OOPS!. The last I heard, our deficit is about 40% of our expenditure. That turns your 1,200,000,000,000 into 3,000,000,000,000. Oh! And Social Security is still funded separately by those, in essence, promised their money back.

 

Either way, the math still stands based upon his statement. if that represents 6% "of the deficit" then the deficit is 1,200,000,000,000, which is almost equal to the entire defense budget and social security combined.

 

And that "fancy math" prefers to be called "Algebra." Linear Diophantine Equations more specifically.

 

Now now, it's just a political image unrelated to the thread (which is standard here) but, I assure you I will stop posting such flagrant gloating in a few years ...or whenever I get bored doing so...or whatever. So please, stop making points that actually matter to the country and focus on the security that political bs provides the uninformed, that they indeed are correct in their beliefs and everyone else sucks.

In other words: I am not done gloating yet. Sorry 'bout that, but I have my reasons.

 

Actually, a more appropriate name would be a misread question. Before you can figure how much the answer is, you have to understand the question.

 

I understand where you are coming from there, I agree that spending should be less than what is being taken in.

Compromise between Reps and Dems is the key ingredient for a balanced budget. IMO, the Republicans haven't been interested in that for a very long time.

 

It wasn't a question, I simply felt like doing some algebra.

 

Our yearly deficit. Expenditure is much, much more.

We don't need to zero it out. But we do need to about halve it (or more) in order to get our debt to gdp ratio back in balance and let it fall back to sane levels and show we have a chance at sustainability. You remember those days where the yearly deficit was 300 or 400 and not 1.1 trillion? It wasn't that long ago.

I have given plans quite a few times. General gist of my thinking is this... Expire the tax cuts over 3-4 years for anyone/family making over the median income level (I suspect that would be at least 200 billion added revenue). Cut defense spending over 3-4 years back to sane levels though a policy of defense of the country and not interventionism and not nation building and not being world police/mercenaries. (easily at least 200 billion). Cut at least another 100 billion immediately from the overall budget through general spending cuts and eliminating subsidies, etc in the tax code.

That at least halves the deficit and we will have a little pain but not debilitating and it is long term sustainable IMO.

What I would really like to see is a scrapping of the current tax code and a complete simplification but I would take something like the above if we have to maintain the tax system we have.

And my real dream for taxes? Tie that simplified tax code directly to spending. We spend more, we automatically increase taxes across the board. We spend less, we automatically decrease taxes across the board.

 

I completely agree. Stop interventionism, nation building and being the world's mercenaries. Easy, easy savings...that neither party seems to want to see happen...at least not when they become Commander in Chief.

 

I like this plan, $44,000 is a comfortable salary, and a good cutoff point for the tax cuts. You seem to be implying a flat tax here though, which I don't agree with.

 

Doesn't have to be flat to be simple. It can still be scaling. I am talking about eliminating all the credits, deductions, subsidies and other legislative shenanigans that hide what the politicians are really using our tax code for...payoffs and kickbacks to businesses, groups, industries, whatever.

From there, you really could come up with simple tax code rate(s) that would be transparent, flexible and understandable.

 

Ahhhhhh! So sad, stupidity doesn't prevail again. Darn!

John Metz Denny's Obamacare Surcharge Stirs Big Mess For Restaurant Chain

Don't expect to hear more about an Obamacare surcharge from Denny's franchisee John Metz.
Denny's chief executive John Miller privately reached out to Metz to express his "disappointment" with the Florida franchisee's controversial statements about Obamacare, which sparked a wave of backlash for the national restaurant chain over the past few days. Metz released a statement Monday night expressing "regret" over his statements.
"We recognize his right to speak on issues, but registered our disappointment that his comments have been interpreted as the company’s position," Miller said in an email to The Huffington Post.
Miller is rushing to put out the fire sparked by Metz's controversial proposal to charge restaurant customers a 5 percent Obamacare fee. "Customers have two choices: They can either pay it and tip 15 or 20 percent, or if they really feel so inclined, they can reduce the amount of tip they give to the server," Metz told HuffPost in an interview last week.
Some Denny's franchisees have since dealt with angry customers, calls for a boycott and declining sales. A spokeswoman for Metz said he will not conduct more interviews.
Metz, whose RREMC Restaurants owns more than 30 Denny's locations, said in a statement, "We regret that the statements we made may have been interpreted as representative of the Denny’s brand or of other franchisees, which they are not. Our stores do not have a 5 percent surcharge. Despite recent media coverage, RREMC Restaurants is committed to exploring viable and effective ways to deal with the changing economic climate, including the implementation of The Affordable Care Act. We have always been and will continue to be 100 percent dedicated to our employees and customers and will work tirelessly to find solutions that are in their best interests. It is our intention is to fully comply with the law."
After Metz's original comments went viral, Abdo Mouannes said sales and traffic dropped "overnight" at his seven Denny's locations in Florida. Angry callers immediately jammed the phones at his restaurants. "The manager said it was so frustrating, she wanted to unplug the phone," Mouannes told HuffPost. "People didn't like what they heard and were saying they wouldn't support Denny's, but we have nothing to do with that decision. I am not a fan of the idea. We are opposing the 5 percent [surcharge] -- it's not even a consideration for us."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/20/john-metz-dennys-obamacare-surcharge-_n_2146735.html

 

View attachment 852

http://nation.foxnews.com/obamacare...ashes-faculty-and-staff-hours-avoid-obamacare

 

Don't expect to hear more about an Obamacare surcharge from Denny's franchisee John Metz.

 

That was a dumb business decision anyway in this divided country. It's not like it is going to cost him any money so why piss off half the electorate and shine a light on it. Just raise your prices and pass the costs onto the consumer like everyone else is going to do.