It's really quite simple. You grow a pair, balance the budget and keep it balanced, and quit spending future generations' money to buy next election's votes. Budgeted debt service pays off the debt over time. You have to address the unfunded future costs as they arise, but as long as you keep the budget balanced, you get there, Math is a beautiful thing.

Only difficult part is getting a politician to vote for it. So we're basically hosed.

I don't think it's possible, given our current demographics and political system, to do it. If the republicans had worked with Clinton instead of screaming Monicagate, we might have gotten there, But that ship has sailed, and it's only a matter of how long will it take us to crater. Obams is speeding up the process.

They should've planned for retirement. Counting on SS is not a plan. They've known it's broke for 20-30 years at least. And I would raise the age to 75 probably or whatever the average death age is. When it was created 65 was the age that the vast majority would be dead at. We need to cut Military spending and entitlements drastically to defeat our debts. Entitlements are the most dangerous area. Our unfunded liabilities from them could bankrupt the country.

[/quote]

I'm not suggesting that SS should be the only means someone should have for retirement and I personally will have other income without SS. But, what you are in fact saying is for people to pay into SS right now with every paycheck (and sock away money for their own retirement), but know that even though you paid into the system for 40+ years, sorry - work till you die. You never get to get back anything you paid into the system all of your working life.

Would that be better than a bankrupt country, yes, but my contention is that there are many, many other things that should be cut before we tell people, "Yea, sorry, I know you paid into the system all your working life, but we pissed away that money on other things. I know, I know, you helped fund millions of retirees before you, but - too bad, work till you die." What a screw job that would be.

Jugnaut, how old are you now anyway?

When you read this do any of you who supported the tax cuts now think it was a horrible idea and Owl we weren't on our way with Clinton we WERE there. Out of ALL of the issues that seperate us THIS is the issue I get behind. If we could only recreate that dynamic again. And I know the supply siders are going to come on here and say the budget was balanced because of the house and senate. Why didn't it stay balanced from 2000-2006? I'm not interested in excuses. Those years set us back generations.

(01-28-2010 12:58 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(01-28-2010 09:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-28-2010 09:11 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(01-28-2010 08:41 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  Ron Paul is the only one I've seen with a practical answer to this. We have to drastically cut military spending. We need to close almost all our 700 overseas bases and bring our troops home. Reduce the size of our military to a defensive force only. Additionally we have to cut entitlement programs. Significantly raise the age for social security and reduce benefits across the board. If we do this we can pay off our debts and emerge strong again.

Just curious - at what age would you suggest for Social Security to begin and at what benefit level? Are you suggesting 75 years of age before benefits and only a couple hundred dollars a month?

If there's anything that's political suicide, it's messing with social security. Even small changes arouse retired people. Anything this massive would be a non-starter. And with the baby boomers starting to hit retirement age, even more so.

I agree about the political suicide. However, how fair is it to look at someone that has paid into the system (basically paid to current retirees) for 40 to 45 years, and then say "ahh, sorry - we pissed away all the contributions you made for 40 years - you can't retire until you're 70.......better yet, just work until you die.

Look, I am all for reducing/eliminating the debt, and I consider myself a fiscal conservative, but i would rather cut military spending, etc. before I screw over people that are 58 years old and have paid into the SS system for 40 years. I just don't think it is right to basically tell those people - sorry, you don't get to retire.

Without changes, SS is expected to run dry sometime in the 2030s. Is it fair to make today's young workers pay into it for 30+ years without getting a dime out of it in return? Getting a payment when you're 70 instead of 65 is better than not getting one at all.

(01-28-2010 08:41 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  Ron Paul is the only one I've seen with a suicidal answer to this. We have to drastically cut military spending. We need to close almost all our 700 overseas bases and bring our troops home. Reduce the size of our military, build a moat and Gigantic Fort around the borders and Immediately end all foreign Travel and "Free Trade" and hope Russia or Iran doesn't start a Nuclear Holocaust and screw up the atmospher of the Closed Society of the United States of Purple Unicorns along with theirs. Additionally we have to cut entitlement programs. Significantly raise the age for social security and reduce benefits across the board so that we can never, ever get elected Dog Catcher and let the Socialist Run rampant inside the new Fortress of Purple Unicorns.

FIFY

(01-28-2010 02:23 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  Without changes, SS is expected to run dry sometime in the 2030s. Is it fair to make today's young workers pay into it for 30+ years without getting a dime out of it in return? Getting a payment when you're 70 instead of 65 is better than not getting one at all.

Thought Experiment, lets assume these stats are true(I've already mentioned how its not near as bad as some think, debunked Accounting Standards and Static Economic Growth..)

How do you propose Increasing the age of SS payments 5yrs? I mean in the real world or Political Realities.

Remember when Bush tried to Privatize a small portion of SS and a GOP wouldn't even debate it? Dead on Arrival... Because the whole topic is Political Suicide, you're never going to get anywhere close to a majority of politicians to commit Suicide together to increase the age 5yrs, and take away livelihood from the biggest Voting constiency, Seniors and Baby Boomers on the cusp of retiring.

(01-28-2010 02:16 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  When you read this do any of you who supported the tax cuts now think it was a horrible idea and Owl we weren't on our way with Clinton we WERE there. Out of ALL of the issues that seperate us THIS is the issue I get behind. If we could only recreate that dynamic again. And I know the supply siders are going to come on here and say the budget was balanced because of the house and senate. Why didn't it stay balanced from 2000-2006? I'm not interested in excuses. Those years set us back generations.

If we're going to be honest, Things went well because Gingrich and Clinton were locked in a power struggle, but they united on things they agreed on for their own purposes. Clinton wanted growth, Gingrich wanted reduced debt burden... so they passed legislation that allowed growth without growing the government. If Clinton hadn't been popular, Gingrich wouldn't have given as much on things like tax cuts... If Gingrich hadn't had the votes, Clinton wouldn't have given...so I'm not crediting Gingrich OR Clinton as much as I am crediting "the system", and the two primary leaders for fighting in public, but working in concert behind the scenes. In 2000-2006, Bush didn't fight congress and in fact became their biggest facilitator. I believe Obama is facing some of the same issues. He can't move center because the left won't let him. Bush couldn't move center because the right wouldn't let him. Clinton moved center because it's the only place he and congress could work together.

Comments like supporting "tax cuts" is a red herring. A) would things have been worse without them? You don't know. B) would spending have been even higher with more revenue to spend? You don't know.

Tax cuts without spending cuts are stupid, yet the only thing we can get the left and right to agree on is spending increases and tax cuts that suit the OMB model such that they produce a "deficit neutral" scenario sometime in the next generation if every single assumption goes right... and they never do... If for some reason they ever do BETTER thn the projection, someone will introduce a bill to cut the "excess" taxes or spend the "excess" revenue.

I'm not upset or calling you out Mach for your "first step"... I'm merely pointing out that it requires an unprecedented amount of agreement and cooperation from people with zero incentive to agree or cooperate.

So... Create the reason for them to agree or cooperate on using money efficiently FIRST. Right now, that reason doesn't exist... and nothing involving "projections" will either. It didn't exist for Clinton/Gingrich either... it just so happened that part of what Gingrich wanted worked with part of what Clinton wanted. Clinton couldn't pass the healthcare he/she wanted because it wasn't fiscally prudent to do it... so Gingrich wouldn't let it come up.

(01-28-2010 02:16 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  [b]When you read this do any of you who supported the tax cuts now think it was a horrible idea[/b] and Owl we weren't on our way with Clinton we WERE there. Out of ALL of the issues that seperate us THIS is the issue I get behind. If we could only recreate that dynamic again. And I know the supply siders are going to come on here and say the budget was balanced because of the house and senate. Why didn't it stay balanced from 2000-2006? I'm not interested in excuses. Those years set us back generations.

Which tax cuts? The Regan tax cuts? They were PERFECT.... AWESOME. Laid the groundwork for a tremendous run in investment and GDP growth. The GW cuts? I was a supporter, but did not have the effect the Regan cuts did. WHY? Because there was not a significant difference in marginal rates to change behavior. Regan marginal taxes went from over 50% to 28%. The GW cuts , have not had a severe impact on our debts. Our problem is on the spending side. The over PROMISING and under FUNDING of our entitlment programs.

Back to change in marginal rates, that is why OWL's idea of the 15/15/15 is significant and would be useful at this time. We will be running short of capital in the future and to give investors (foreign too) significantly lower tax rate 38% >> 15%, that they have to pay, the more likely to invest capital.

We are not in an environment where your "normal" tax cuts would be helpful, lenders/savers do NOT want to invest . Additional, we are not in an environment under any circumstances of RAISING TAXES. That is a death sentence.

Just answer one simple question. Do you think that the US gov't should keep the SS promises it made to the people who already paid for it? Yes or No?

If they want out of it that should give everyone a lump sum distribution. I'll take 40 acres and a mule for mine.

There sure are a lot of gov't workers on salary continuation and full benefits after their terms in office no matter how short those terms are.

(01-28-2010 05:00 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-28-2010 02:16 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  When you read this do any of you who supported the tax cuts now think it was a horrible idea and Owl we weren't on our way with Clinton we WERE there. Out of ALL of the issues that seperate us THIS is the issue I get behind. If we could only recreate that dynamic again. And I know the supply siders are going to come on here and say the budget was balanced because of the house and senate. Why didn't it stay balanced from 2000-2006? I'm not interested in excuses. Those years set us back generations.

If we're going to be honest, Things went well because Gingrich and Clinton were locked in a power struggle, but they united on things they agreed on for their own purposes. Clinton wanted growth, Gingrich wanted reduced debt burden... so they passed legislation that allowed growth without growing the government. If Clinton hadn't been popular, Gingrich wouldn't have given as much on things like tax cuts... If Gingrich hadn't had the votes, Clinton wouldn't have given...so I'm not crediting Gingrich OR Clinton as much as I am crediting "the system", and the two primary leaders for fighting in public, but working in concert behind the scenes. In 2000-2006, Bush didn't fight congress and in fact became their biggest facilitator. I believe Obama is facing some of the same issues. He can't move center because the left won't let him. Bush couldn't move center because the right wouldn't let him. Clinton moved center because it's the only place he and congress could work together.

Comments like supporting "tax cuts" is a red herring. A) would things have been worse without them? You don't know. B) would spending have been even higher with more revenue to spend? You don't know.

Tax cuts without spending cuts are stupid, yet the only thing we can get the left and right to agree on is spending increases and tax cuts that suit the OMB model such that they produce a "deficit neutral" scenario sometime in the next generation if every single assumption goes right... and they never do... If for some reason

I'm not upset or calling you out Mach for your "first step"... I'm merely pointing out that it requires an unprecedented amount of agreement and cooperation from people with zero incentive to agree or cooperate.

So... Create the reason for them to agree or cooperate on using money efficiently FIRST. Right now, that reason doesn't exist... and nothing involving "projections" will either. It didn't exist for Clinton/Gingrich either... it just so happened that part of what Gingrich wanted worked with part of what Clinton wanted. Clinton couldn't pass the healthcare he/she wanted because it wasn't fiscally prudent to do it... so Gingrich wouldn't let it come up.

In a book I read about Greenspan, Greenspan noted that Clinton listened closely to him when he recommended balanced budgets to keep the economy humming, and seemed to take it very seriously. Greenspan credited that for a good part of the strong economy in the later 90s. I don't think Gingrich was the only factor involved.

(01-28-2010 02:04 PM)Crebman Wrote:  They should've planned for retirement. Counting on SS is not a plan. They've known it's broke for 20-30 years at least. And I would raise the age to 75 probably or whatever the average death age is. When it was created 65 was the age that the vast majority would be dead at. We need to cut Military spending and entitlements drastically to defeat our debts. Entitlements are the most dangerous area. Our unfunded liabilities from them could bankrupt the country.

I'm not suggesting that SS should be the only means someone should have for retirement and I personally will have other income without SS. But, what you are in fact saying is for people to pay into SS right now with every paycheck (and sock away money for their own retirement), but know that even though you paid into the system for 40+ years, sorry - work till you die. You never get to get back anything you paid into the system all of your working life.

Would that be better than a bankrupt country, yes, but my contention is that there are many, many other things that should be cut before we tell people, "Yea, sorry, I know you paid into the system all your working life, but we pissed away that money on other things. I know, I know, you helped fund millions of retirees before you, but - too bad, work till you die." What a screw job that would be.

Jugnaut, how old are you now anyway?
[/quote]

26, I pay plenty of money into SS that I"ll never see. It sucks to say that the money was pissed away, but it was, why waste more and potentially take the entire country down with you? What I'm saying is we don't have the money to pay them. We can try to pay them and make everyone poor (bankrupt the nation) or we can cut out SS and other entitlements and continue on as a country. I also have a problem with people thinking that they have a right to entitlements or to retire. It is a wonderful thing to retire, but it's certainly no right. You work hard to survive.

You don't have a right to:
retirement
health care
a good job
wealth

You have a right to:
Your body and the works of your hands

That's what it all boils down to. As a professor once put it: "Sure we're not cavemen trying to spear a wildebeest anymore, but when we go to work that's what we're doing, we're fighting for our own survival. So go out there and spear the wildebeest, compete and survive."

(01-28-2010 06:41 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(01-28-2010 02:04 PM)Crebman Wrote:  They should've planned for retirement. Counting on SS is not a plan. They've known it's broke for 20-30 years at least. And I would raise the age to 75 probably or whatever the average death age is. When it was created 65 was the age that the vast majority would be dead at. We need to cut Military spending and entitlements drastically to defeat our debts. Entitlements are the most dangerous area. Our unfunded liabilities from them could bankrupt the country.

I'm not suggesting that SS should be the only means someone should have for retirement and I personally will have other income without SS. But, what you are in fact saying is for people to pay into SS right now with every paycheck (and sock away money for their own retirement), but know that even though you paid into the system for 40+ years, sorry - work till you die. You never get to get back anything you paid into the system all of your working life.

Would that be better than a bankrupt country, yes, but my contention is that there are many, many other things that should be cut before we tell people, "Yea, sorry, I know you paid into the system all your working life, but we pissed away that money on other things. I know, I know, you helped fund millions of retirees before you, but - too bad, work till you die." What a screw job that would be.

Jugnaut, how old are you now anyway?

26, I pay plenty of money into SS that I"ll never see. It sucks to say that the money was pissed away, but it was, why waste more and potentially take the entire country down with you? What I'm saying is we don't have the money to pay them. We can try to pay them and make everyone poor (bankrupt the nation) or we can cut out SS and other entitlements and continue on as a country. I also have a problem with people thinking that they have a right to entitlements or to retire. It is a wonderful thing to retire, but it's certainly no right. You work hard to survive.

You don't have a right to:
retirement
health care
a good job
wealth

You have a right to:
Your body and the works of your hands

That's what it all boils down to. As a professor once put it: "Sure we're not cavemen trying to spear a wildebeest anymore, but when we go to work that's what we're doing, we're fighting for our own survival. So go out there and spear the wildebeest, compete and survive."
[/quote]


You are right that I don't have a right to health care, a good job, and wealth. Fact is I have health care, a good job and would be considered to be probably upper middle class.

However, the government of the United States has forced me to pay into SS. With this forced payment comes a promise to pay SS benefits when retirement age is reached. How is this different than any other government obligation, be they bonds, treasuries, etc. Are you also proposing that the U.S. government default on these obligations.

It is really easy to just say "trash the SS system" when you are 26 and still have a full lifetime of working ahead of you. I think it is incredibly unfair to look at someone that is 58 or 60 and has paid into this system for a lifetime and just say - tough sh!t, you'll just have to work until you die.

I would have actually preferred that SS would not have been deducted from my earnings and I could have used that money for my own retirement - but it has never been my choice.

(01-28-2010 08:31 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(01-28-2010 06:41 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(01-28-2010 02:04 PM)Crebman Wrote:  They should've planned for retirement. Counting on SS is not a plan. They've known it's broke for 20-30 years at least. And I would raise the age to 75 probably or whatever the average death age is. When it was created 65 was the age that the vast majority would be dead at. We need to cut Military spending and entitlements drastically to defeat our debts. Entitlements are the most dangerous area. Our unfunded liabilities from them could bankrupt the country.

I'm not suggesting that SS should be the only means someone should have for retirement and I personally will have other income without SS. But, what you are in fact saying is for people to pay into SS right now with every paycheck (and sock away money for their own retirement), but know that even though you paid into the system for 40+ years, sorry - work till you die. You never get to get back anything you paid into the system all of your working life.

Would that be better than a bankrupt country, yes, but my contention is that there are many, many other things that should be cut before we tell people, "Yea, sorry, I know you paid into the system all your working life, but we pissed away that money on other things. I know, I know, you helped fund millions of retirees before you, but - too bad, work till you die." What a screw job that would be.

Jugnaut, how old are you now anyway?

26, I pay plenty of money into SS that I"ll never see. It sucks to say that the money was pissed away, but it was, why waste more and potentially take the entire country down with you? What I'm saying is we don't have the money to pay them. We can try to pay them and make everyone poor (bankrupt the nation) or we can cut out SS and other entitlements and continue on as a country. I also have a problem with people thinking that they have a right to entitlements or to retire. It is a wonderful thing to retire, but it's certainly no right. You work hard to survive.

You don't have a right to:
retirement
health care
a good job
wealth

You have a right to:
Your body and the works of your hands

That's what it all boils down to. As a professor once put it: "Sure we're not cavemen trying to spear a wildebeest anymore, but when we go to work that's what we're doing, we're fighting for our own survival. So go out there and spear the wildebeest, compete and survive."

You are right that I don't have a right to health care, a good job, and wealth. Fact is I have health care, a good job and would be considered to be probably upper middle class.

However, the government of the United States has forced me to pay into SS. With this forced payment comes a promise to pay SS benefits when retirement age is reached. How is this different than any other government obligation, be they bonds, treasuries, etc. Are you also proposing that the U.S. government default on these obligations.

It is really easy to just say "trash the SS system" when you are 26 and still have a full lifetime of working ahead of you. I think it is incredibly unfair to look at someone that is 58 or 60 and has paid into this system for a lifetime and just say - tough sh!t, you'll just have to work until you die.

I would have actually preferred that SS would not have been deducted from my earnings and I could have used that money for my own retirement - but it has never been my choice.
[/quote]

Would a staggered diminishing payout work for you? Such as people over a certain age get a higher percentage and it keeps lowering by age to nothing so it can be phased out in 10 years?

(01-28-2010 05:19 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  In a book I read about Greenspan, Greenspan noted that Clinton listened closely to him when he recommended balanced budgets to keep the economy humming, and seemed to take it very seriously. Greenspan credited that for a good part of the strong economy in the later 90s. I don't think Gingrich was the only factor involved.

I hope I didn't imply that he was... and clearly I could have included many other people. I focused on the two most obvious player at the time.

It was a simple fact of an alignment of certain goals... regardless of whether those goals were selfish, intelligent, altruistic or opportunistic. I'll let each individual assign those attributes as they see fit.

(01-29-2010 08:42 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(01-28-2010 08:31 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(01-28-2010 06:41 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(01-28-2010 02:04 PM)Crebman Wrote:  They should've planned for retirement. Counting on SS is not a plan. They've known it's broke for 20-30 years at least. And I would raise the age to 75 probably or whatever the average death age is. When it was created 65 was the age that the vast majority would be dead at. We need to cut Military spending and entitlements drastically to defeat our debts. Entitlements are the most dangerous area. Our unfunded liabilities from them could bankrupt the country.

I'm not suggesting that SS should be the only means someone should have for retirement and I personally will have other income without SS. But, what you are in fact saying is for people to pay into SS right now with every paycheck (and sock away money for their own retirement), but know that even though you paid into the system for 40+ years, sorry - work till you die. You never get to get back anything you paid into the system all of your working life.

Would that be better than a bankrupt country, yes, but my contention is that there are many, many other things that should be cut before we tell people, "Yea, sorry, I know you paid into the system all your working life, but we pissed away that money on other things. I know, I know, you helped fund millions of retirees before you, but - too bad, work till you die." What a screw job that would be.

Jugnaut, how old are you now anyway?

26, I pay plenty of money into SS that I"ll never see. It sucks to say that the money was pissed away, but it was, why waste more and potentially take the entire country down with you? What I'm saying is we don't have the money to pay them. We can try to pay them and make everyone poor (bankrupt the nation) or we can cut out SS and other entitlements and continue on as a country. I also have a problem with people thinking that they have a right to entitlements or to retire. It is a wonderful thing to retire, but it's certainly no right. You work hard to survive.

You don't have a right to:
retirement
health care
a good job
wealth

You have a right to:
Your body and the works of your hands

That's what it all boils down to. As a professor once put it: "Sure we're not cavemen trying to spear a wildebeest anymore, but when we go to work that's what we're doing, we're fighting for our own survival. So go out there and spear the wildebeest, compete and survive."

You are right that I don't have a right to health care, a good job, and wealth. Fact is I have health care, a good job and would be considered to be probably upper middle class.

However, the government of the United States has forced me to pay into SS. With this forced payment comes a promise to pay SS benefits when retirement age is reached. How is this different than any other government obligation, be they bonds, treasuries, etc. Are you also proposing that the U.S. government default on these obligations.

It is really easy to just say "trash the SS system" when you are 26 and still have a full lifetime of working ahead of you. I think it is incredibly unfair to look at someone that is 58 or 60 and has paid into this system for a lifetime and just say - tough sh!t, you'll just have to work until you die.

I would have actually preferred that SS would not have been deducted from my earnings and I could have used that money for my own retirement - but it has never been my choice.

Would a staggered diminishing payout work for you? Such as people over a certain age get a higher percentage and it keeps lowering by age to nothing so it can be phased out in 10 years?
[/quote]


I really think to do away with SS this sort of thing would have to be done. Folks closest to retirement age have the least amount of time to adjust, while the youngest in the workforce have nearly a lifetime of years to adjust to the changing financial landscape.

Quite frankly, if I were 26 like you, I would prefer to phase out SS and allow for the individual to use those funds to prepare for retirement. I suspect that someone of your age, if wise, could build a retirement nest egg that would far surpass what SS would provide. At any rate, you wouldn't be tied to the stupid spending decisions of government that we are today.......sink or swim on your own.

(01-27-2010 12:55 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I know most of you are thinking that's easy, so I have an assignment for an industrous worker bee. What percentage would we have to cut the federal budget to balance it in thirty years. To me that would be a decent goal. If we cut 10% off the budget could we get there? I'm sure it's much more draconian than that.

In 30 years, the country will have been completely and utterly bankrupted by baby boomers collecting medicare and social security and medicaid. In just SIX YEARS social security will stop turning overages and start sucking money up.

We have to start turning LARGE budget surpluses EVERY YEAR, as well as put in place LARGE cuts in benefits. And cut back SIGNIFICANTLY on the US warmachine spending.

Wake up Mach. Your approach would kill the country.

I am not a smart person...but...I would only make ONE policy change...then...let it play out. Eliminate ALL corporate income taxes.

I believe it would set in motion a series of things that would transform America BACK to its former greatness...The HUB of industry,business and technology on this planet.

If you want to reduce debt and deficits....You MUST either reduce spending(which we KNOW is not going to happen)..or..create more wealth though additional taxpayers and higher incomes. A booming economy results in LOTS of stolen revenue for the governmental apparatus.

Let the marketplace solve the problems government created...It is fully capable of doing so if left alone to do its job.

(01-29-2010 05:29 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I am not a smart person...but...I would only make ONE policy change...then...let it play out. Eliminate ALL corporate income taxes.

I believe it would set in motion a series of things that would transform America BACK to its former greatness...The HUB of industry,business and technology on this planet.

If you want to reduce debt and deficits....You MUST either reduce spending(which we KNOW is not going to happen)..or..create more wealth though additional taxpayers and higher incomes. A booming economy results in LOTS of stolen revenue for the governmental apparatus.

Let the marketplace solve the problems government created...It is fully capable of doing so if left alone to do its job.

I think that would lead to another boom period, at best, with an even larger deficit, since you would have lost lots of tax revenue. And then the balloon would burst and it would be even worse than usual. Spending cuts need to happen first. The fact is that people got used to a certain standard of living and it isn't sustainable. We're just regressing to the mean.

(02-01-2010 11:44 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-29-2010 05:29 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I am not a smart person...but...I would only make ONE policy change...then...let it play out. Eliminate ALL corporate income taxes.

I believe it would set in motion a series of things that would transform America BACK to its former greatness...The HUB of industry,business and technology on this planet.

If you want to reduce debt and deficits....You MUST either reduce spending(which we KNOW is not going to happen)..or..create more wealth though additional taxpayers and higher incomes. A booming economy results in LOTS of stolen revenue for the governmental apparatus.

Let the marketplace solve the problems government created...It is fully capable of doing so if left alone to do its job.

I think that would lead to another boom period, at best, with an even larger deficit, since you would have lost lots of tax revenue. And then the balloon would burst and it would be even worse than usual. Spending cuts need to happen first. The fact is that people got used to a certain standard of living and it isn't sustainable. We're just regressing to the mean.

"Spending cuts have to happen first" ...Absolutely true, but beware of the effects of what will happen. MASSIVE UNEMPLOYMENT, MORE BKS, LOWER ASSET PRICES (Stocks & residential housing). I agree it must happen, but do we have the nads to do this? Political class making the tough decisions?

Look at Obama, he is still blaming the last guy, that is his strategy. That is his political strategy for survival not really doing anything with long term positives, but SURVIVING. He is not the 1st poli or the only poli with this attitude, they all have it and as a result they don't pursue the policies that will benefit the people.

(02-01-2010 11:44 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-29-2010 05:29 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I am not a smart person...but...I would only make ONE policy change...then...let it play out. Eliminate ALL corporate income taxes.

I believe it would set in motion a series of things that would transform America BACK to its former greatness...The HUB of industry,business and technology on this planet.

If you want to reduce debt and deficits....You MUST either reduce spending(which we KNOW is not going to happen)..or..create more wealth though additional taxpayers and higher incomes. A booming economy results in LOTS of stolen revenue for the governmental apparatus.

Let the marketplace solve the problems government created...It is fully capable of doing so if left alone to do its job.

I think that would lead to another boom period, at best, with an even larger deficit, since you would have lost lots of tax revenue. And then the balloon would burst and it would be even worse than usual. Spending cuts need to happen first. The fact is that people got used to a certain standard of living and it isn't sustainable. We're just regressing to the mean.

I fully agree that spending must decrease....I just know it is NOT going to happen. Neither gang is willing to give up their agendas and the VOTES that they buy in supporting them. When the Red gang cuts military spending...and...the Blue gang cuts entitlements...then I will know that the thieves in Washington are serious about saving America from demise.