(08-06-2011 12:59 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Yes. I posted but nothing showed up on screen.

same thing happened to me

(08-05-2011 08:58 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 08:46 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The timing has never been so ripe for tax reforms. If we could get some sensible people you could really make some reasonable reforms. I'm afraid only one side realizes it.

Agreed:

1) ELIMINATE income taxes for businesses, tax wages paid to employees and dividends paid to investors.

2) Eliminate all deductions and have a single tax rate paid by all individuals.

3) Create a true social security trust fund with investments in private sector securities, not gubment IOU's.

4) No exceptions no loopholes eliminate all pandering to special interests.

It would be finally be a true tax reform not a wealth redistribution program.

Really? So privatizing SS and putting **** loads of money in the hands of Wall Street is a better idea? Sounds like the Wall Street special interests would stand to make enormous amounts of money-at our expense.

Spending.

Cut spending.

That means spending less dollars next year than you spent this year.

That does not mean spending less than a 7% year over year annual increase. That's still not a cut.

That means punting Boehner and the spineless GOP leadership.

That means punting Obama.

That means punting Reid and the Senate Democrat majority.

That means continuing the purge of the GOP of lesser fiscal candidates. I don't give a f*** about your social views at this point, but you better g** d*** well f***ing toe the line financially.

That means medicare has to be cut and reformed.

That means medicaid has to be cut and reformed.

That means social security has to be cut and reformed.

That means military spending has to be cut and reformed.

That means all of the above four have to be cut and reformed. There are no sacred cows. ALL OF THEM.

That means fundamentally changing what Americans think the role of government ought to be. That means convincing them that we cannot be the policemen of the world. That means convincing them that more than half the budget going to entitlements is socialism, theft, immoral, unethical, a moral hazard, and wrong.

That means reaching the majority of Americans who have been relentlessly dumbed down by crappy education and corporate owned media mouthpieces that give the corporate party line instead of the news and unplugging them from the Matrix.

That means reverting to sound money to prevent the Federal Reserve from simply creating huge swaths of money out of thin air to default via the most insidious and regressive tax ever created: inflation.



........ That means we're completely and catastrophically FUBAR.

(08-05-2011 10:40 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Cutting 1% of what? There is nothing that we can cut 1% of for 6 years (including the entire federal budget) that puts us remotely close to a balanced budget.

Actually, if you cut 1% across the board each year, and if the "Bush tax cuts" expire, both revenues and expenditures are about $3.6 trillion in 2015.

On the revenue side, I'd rather reform the whole system. Probably the same with a good bit of the expenditure side. But there are possible alternatives.

(08-06-2011 03:33 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Spending.
Cut spending.
That means spending less dollars next year than you spent this year.
That does not mean spending less than a 7% year over year annual increase. That's still not a cut.
That means punting Boehner and the spineless GOP leadership.
That means punting Obama.
That means punting Reid and the Senate Democrat majority.
That means continuing the purge of the GOP of lesser fiscal candidates. I don't give a f*** about your social views at this point, but you better g** d*** well f***ing toe the line financially.
That means medicare has to be cut and reformed.
That means medicaid has to be cut and reformed.
That means social security has to be cut and reformed.
That means military spending has to be cut and reformed.
That means all of the above four have to be cut and reformed. There are no sacred cows. ALL OF THEM.
That means fundamentally changing what Americans think the role of government ought to be. That means convincing them that we cannot be the policemen of the world. That means convincing them that more than half the budget going to entitlements is socialism, theft, immoral, unethical, a moral hazard, and wrong.
That means reaching the majority of Americans who have been relentlessly dumbed down by crappy education and corporate owned media mouthpieces that give the corporate party line instead of the news and unplugging them from the Matrix.
That means reverting to sound money to prevent the Federal Reserve from simply creating huge swaths of money out of thin air to default via the most insidious and regressive tax ever created: inflation.
........ That means we're completely and catastrophically FUBAR.

No, it means there's a way out, but we're not going to find it with current leadership.

Thanks to the TEA Party's failure to include revenue enhancement and the Bush/Obama (budget busting) Tax cuts we will now waste more of our hard earned tax dollars on higher interest payments to China rather than programs to help American citizens.

I think this clip from Bill Maher covers the situation adequately.

The woman is a former COTUS economic advisor.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppa...darn-f-ked

2 of the 3 "major" credit rating agencies kept the US at AAA status so my understanding is this will have little to no effect on interest rates

(08-06-2011 07:05 AM)boss man Wrote:  I think this clip from Bill Maher covers the situation adequately.

The woman is a former COTUS economic advisor.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppa...darn-f-ked

...and I feel so cheap.

(08-06-2011 07:09 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  2 of the 3 "major" credit rating agencies kept the US at AAA status so my understanding is this will have little to no effect on interest rates

It doesn't work that way.

Look at this...

http://usdebt.kleptocracy.us/

Enough said. What scares the sh*t out of me is the $114.5 Trillion UNFUNDED liabilities due to the entitlement progrmas. think you are in trouble now? Wait until THAT needs to be funded!

(08-06-2011 08:47 AM)Claw Wrote:  

(08-06-2011 07:09 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  2 of the 3 "major" credit rating agencies kept the US at AAA status so my understanding is this will have little to no effect on interest rates

It doesn't work that way.

Just parrotting the "expert analysis" I saw this morning, we shall soon see. Standard and Poors did indicate the rating could improve for the US if "2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners lapse from 2013 onward" so once again reality clashes with "conservative wisdom" and we all pay the price so some wingnut House member can tout his resolve in 2012.

(08-06-2011 09:06 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Just parrotting the "expert analysis" I saw this morning, we shall soon see. Standard and Poors did indicate the rating could improve for the US if "2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners lapse from 2013 onward" so once again reality clashes with "conservative wisdom" and we all pay the price so some wingnut House member can tout his resolve in 2012.

Not surprising you would read it that way. They are talking strictly in the sense of revenue in to the treasury via higher taxes. They're not addressing the economic impact of doing so.

You liberals have an uncanny ability to not understand what you're reading.

You don't raise taxes in a down economy. It would be like pouring gasoline on a brush fire. We have to get economic recovery going, more people back to work, more businesses making money. Then you can explore a tax increase. But it needs to be in the form of full on tax reform, not just having rates go back to the Clinton era. Going back to the Clinton rates would still leave us with a 6 trillion dollar deficit over 10 years. That's what you liberals don't get. You act like going back to early 90's rates is the magic bullet for all that's wrong. That's simply not reality.

Is the downgrad a good thing. Could it increase the cost of borrowing. Will the increased cost of borrowing put such a spot light on the portion of the annual budget spend in debt service that it will force reform?

Revenue increases come from an expanding economy. Other than that, there is a $trillion underground economy, why are they not going after that? Seems to be low hanging fruit.

(08-06-2011 05:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 10:40 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Cutting 1% of what? There is nothing that we can cut 1% of for 6 years (including the entire federal budget) that puts us remotely close to a balanced budget.

Actually, if you cut 1% across the board each year, and if the "Bush tax cuts" expire, both revenues and expenditures are about $3.6 trillion in 2015.

On the revenue side, I'd rather reform the whole system. Probably the same with a good bit of the expenditure side. But there are possible alternatives.

That has to assume an extremely unrealistic economic growth factored in for that to work. Government revenue is now around $2.17 trillion. The Bush tax cuts aren't anywhere near that extreme. Actually the only way you even get the numbers they said they'll get in Congress on the recently passed bill is if they let the tax cuts expire and that bill does diddly squat on the deficit.

Guys really please look at the numbers, $1.6-$1.7 trillion in deficit spending in likely this year. Use that number and try to find a way to get rid of it. Also remember interest in going to skyrocket with any economic recovery (and is going up even without it) and medicare and social security go more and more in the red each year even while providing no extra benefits.

(08-06-2011 09:06 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Just parrotting the "expert analysis" I saw this morning, we shall soon see. Standard and Poors did indicate the rating could improve for the US if "2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners lapse from 2013 onward" so once again reality clashes with "conservative wisdom" and we all pay the price so some wingnut House member can tout his resolve in 2012.

Expert economic analysis on TV has been terrible at best and down right deceitful at worst for a long time. There are economics out there that warned heavily about the housing bubble and debt concerns for the better part of a decade and you almost never see them invited to anything on TV, particularly CNBC.

There is no reason that the US should not have been downgraded years ago based on our debt. I have no problem blaming Bush (that he was called a conservative is insulting), but the biggest issue is spending. $1.6-$1.7 trillion in deficit spending this year. There is no way you can tax your way out of that. The money isn't even close to being there.

(08-05-2011 11:32 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  An economy with lowered unemployment and rising wages would help quite a bit. I am still in favor of a scenario where we cut 1 trillion out of the budget over each of the next 2 years and replacing 50-75% of those savings on infrastructure projects and the remaining amount on tax cuts. After those years the money that was spent on infrastructure for the previous 2 years is straight savings.

It's a win-win

We are forced to deal with entitlements spending in a meaningful way.
We put people to work NOW.
We cut taxes to increase available capital in the private sector.
We start down the road to update and replace our outdated infrastructure.
You have meaningful deficit reduction in 2 years when the economy should...I repeat...should be in a better place.

I'd vote for cutting out $1 trillion over the next 2 years (and the entire debt with 3 years along with some default), but I think it needs to go straight to cutting the deficit not to tax cuts or infrastructure. It's going to mean depression like life for awhile, but we can't grow our way out of this with debt this high. We've been trying that for going on 3 years now with deficit spending north of 10% a year and its gotten us nothing but more in the hole. The only way out of this is by taking the pain we keep pushing off.

Here's what I'd do

1. Go to 15-15-15 flat tax/consumption tax combination (15% payroll split 7.5/7.5 between employer and employee, with no upper limit, plus 15% consumption tax, plus 15% business/investment income tax), with 30% Boortz-Linder prefund. This gets you about $300 billion more per year in revenues (net of the prefund).
2. Cut $100 billion a year from defense, without weakening us, by 1) bringing troops home from Germany and Japan, 2) converting 500,000 active duty slots into 1,000,000 reserve slots that cost about 20% as much each, 3) getting out of the nation-building business, 4) revising procurement policies and procedures, including fly before you buy and implementing the Zumwalt high-low mix of systems, and 5) never fighting a war we don't intend to win (goes with 3).
3. Replace the exisitng welfare hodgpodge with the prefund (funded above) and French health care (funded with elimination of Medicaid, offsets to Medicare--which will be phased out eventually--and reduction of the alphabet soup of programs made redundant by the prefund, see above). Provide a far better safety net with a net reduction of about $100 billion in cost.
4. Do away with corporate welfare programs, which are no longer needed to make US companies competitive, thanks to the tax changes above. Get rid of other non-productive and duplicative discretionary programs by eliminating them, farming them out to the states, and/or privatizing them, to save $500 billion.
5. Transfer the interstate highway system (revamped into a nationwide system of toll roads), the postal service, TVA and the western power agencies, air traffic control, water supply operations, and any other suitable operations to social security fund, offsetting with a reduction in debt owed by the general fund. Privatize them as self-funding profit-seeking corporations, with a target ROI of 5%, with profits going to grow the SS trust fund into a real fund. Use these as seed items for an ultimate privatization of a part of SS, along the lines of Sweden.
6. There are 320,000 federal employees in the DC area. Cut half of them. At a (probably low) estimate of $100,000 a head ("all-in" cost) this saves $16 billion a year. No cuts in the field, no cuts in service, just get rid of a LOT of deadweight at the top. It's not a lot of dollars, but it's a strong signal.
7. Go for something like the "revenue neutral" gasoline tax that Charles Krauthammer proposed. Increase the tax on gasoline (and diesel) by a quarter a year until it hits $2/gallon. Give half the money back by adding it to the prefund, say giving every driver or vehicle a 10,000 mile allowance at the CAFE rate. The impact on lower incomes is little or nothing, and if you drive less or get a more efficient car you can actually come out ahead.
8. Legalize marijuana and tax it, raising maybe another $100 billion a year.

Comments?

(08-06-2011 09:58 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(08-06-2011 05:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 10:40 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Cutting 1% of what? There is nothing that we can cut 1% of for 6 years (including the entire federal budget) that puts us remotely close to a balanced budget.

Actually, if you cut 1% across the board each year, and if the "Bush tax cuts" expire, both revenues and expenditures are about $3.6 trillion in 2015.
On the revenue side, I'd rather reform the whole system. Probably the same with a good bit of the expenditure side. But there are possible alternatives.

That has to assume an extremely unrealistic economic growth factored in for that to work. Government revenue is now around $2.17 trillion. The Bush tax cuts aren't anywhere near that extreme. Actually the only way you even get the numbers they said they'll get in Congress on the recently passed bill is if they let the tax cuts expire and that bill does diddly squat on the deficit.
Guys really please look at the numbers, $1.6-$1.7 trillion in deficit spending in likely this year. Use that number and try to find a way to get rid of it. Also remember interest in going to skyrocket with any economic recovery (and is going up even without it) and medicare and social security go more and more in the red each year even while providing no extra benefits.

Yeah, it's the growth factors that the Obama administration used. And they still get deficits around a trillion per year. They are just spending money for the hell of it.