Disclaimer Posted July 26, 2011 Report Share Posted July 26, 2011 Raising the debt limit = bandaid fix.Cutting spending AND raising revenues on the top 2% of Americans whos income gap is the largest its ever been = long term fix.Fixed that for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crb Posted July 26, 2011 Report Share Posted July 26, 2011 Fair tax! Revenues raised Nuf said! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted July 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 2011 Fixed that for you. No need to raise taxes, just fix the tax code. This would easily raise revenues, without really raising taxes. Get rid of tax cuts, and simply tax people less to begin with. Imagine the economic boom if people were able to keep significantly more of their hard earned money. Around 30-35% of my pay goes to taxes, SS, etc. Drop that down to 20%, and I'll have much more money to dump into the economy, thus raising tax revenues from businesses. I don't care about a tax deduction from my house or anything else. It's like a mail-in rebate from the store. Just charge me the lower rate and get on with it. But more importantly is cutting spending. Why force the wealthy people to pay for the government's mistakes? It's just fucking stupid. Cut spending. It isn't rocket science. Everyone else in the world gets it. You have X revenue coming in, and it doesn't cover the bills. Cut spending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kawi kid Posted July 26, 2011 Report Share Posted July 26, 2011 (edited) No need to raise taxes, just fix the tax code. This would easily raise revenues, without really raising taxes. Get rid of tax cuts, and simply tax people less to begin with. Imagine the economic boom if people were able to keep significantly more of their hard earned money. Around 30-35% of my pay goes to taxes, SS, etc. Drop that down to 20%, and I'll have much more money to dump into the economy, thus raising tax revenues from businesses. I don't care about a tax deduction from my house or anything else. It's like a mail-in rebate from the store. Just charge me the lower rate and get on with it. But more importantly is cutting spending. Why force the wealthy people to pay for the government's mistakes? It's just fucking stupid. Cut spending. It isn't rocket science. Everyone else in the world gets it. You have X revenue coming in, and it doesn't cover the bills. Cut spending. Again you clearly don't understand. You need to spend money to make money. You take every red cent of revenue you recieve and spend it. You make absolutely sure there is no left over so when election time comes around you tell the general public that you have noooo money and the sky is falling and the teachers and fire fighters will lose jobs and there will be no cops and with out cop there will be blood in the streets then there is nobody to clean the streets cuz the city workers had to be layed off too. and then obviously people dont like the smell of blood and don't want to ruin their new baller white kicks so they vote for an increase of revenue for the jack asses that wasted it in the first place. Two years later rinse lather repeat. but really that's how it goes. Every agency has to spend all it gets in order to justify an increase in funds for the next year. Edited July 26, 2011 by kawi kid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted July 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 2011 Again you clearly don't understand. You need to spend money to make money. You take every red cent of revenue you recieve and spend it. You make absolutely sure there is no left over so when election time comes around you tell the general public that you have noooo money and the sky is falling and the teachers and fire fighters will lose jobs and there will be no cops and with out cop there will be blood in the streets then there is nobody to clean the streets cuz the city workers had to be layed off too. and then obviously people dont like the smell of blood and don't want to ruin their new baller white kicks so they vote for an increase of revenue for the jack asses that wasted it in the first place. Two years later rinse lather repeat. but really that's how it goes. Every agency has to spend all it gets in order to justify an increase in funds for the next year.Which goes back to my government profit sharing idea. Instead of being forced to use or lose, they should get a bonus amounting to a percentage of the money left over and saved. For instance, if a department has a $1,000,000 annual budget, and spends only $700,000, the employees should split a percentage (say 40%) of the savings. Using that example and assuming there are 100 employees in said department, each employee would receive a $1200 bonus check, and the government will have pocketed $180,000. Sure in the grand scheme of things that isn't a lot of money, but add it up over the many government departments (and their real budgets) and it adds up quickly. That's a very simple revenue generator. All money saved goes to a surplus fund to cover shortages later. Budgets are not adjusted based on usage, but on need. If a department budgets $1,000,000 one year and doesn't spend it all, the following year it doesn't mean their budget gets cut. This is how many private businesses operate, and because it works. It encourages employees to be thrifty and efficient, which is exactly what we need right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted July 26, 2011 Report Share Posted July 26, 2011 The federal tax burden is at its lowest level in 60yrs, so...I can agree that the tax code needs fixed, but "fixing" it is just another way of taxing the wealthy since they'll lose all the deductions they currently enjoy. Obama mentioned that in his speech last night.And I hope your 'profit sharing' idea was just trolling... because that's a HUGE incentive to promote corner cutting and denials of services. You can save millions only operating govt offices one day a week, or getting rid of Veterans benefits... I love incentivizing people managing a system to pad their pockets at the expense of the people stuck USING the system. Ya know, like the insurance industry, who has to be govt regulated to ensure 'good faith' behavior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shittygsxr Posted July 26, 2011 Report Share Posted July 26, 2011 Minimum tax law! end thread.Tax Policy Center, a well-regarded think tank, calculated that 47% of Americans would owe no federal income taxes for 2009.http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-04-16-editorial16_ST_N.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted July 26, 2011 Report Share Posted July 26, 2011 wanna save money? GTFO of two wars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crb Posted July 26, 2011 Report Share Posted July 26, 2011 Two hell how about three wars one of which is an illegal war because he hasn't gotten congressional approval. They won't fight the war they should be fighting on our southern border. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorifto240 Posted July 26, 2011 Report Share Posted July 26, 2011 I believe that Ohio is constitutionally bound to have a balanced budget. Which is why our current budget woes are relatively minor, barring the political posturing and threats from both sides, compared to a state like California.Raising tax rates on the wealthy is like carrying water in a collander. Unless you plug the holes, it doesn't work. It plays nice on television if you're going for that class warfare thing that the Left never engages in. But it's all talk, especially since both sides of the debate ARE in that top bracket or are DIRECTLY FUNDED by said bracket. Last time I checked, most of America can't afford the $20,000 a plate dinners that helped fund both presidential campaigns. Politicians may be idiots, but they're smart enough to not bite the hand that feeds them.Until the bureaucracy changes: nothing will. Ever go to the BMV or Post Office before and after an election? The same shitty people are there doing the same shitty job they've always done. Which is why the promise of "change" is a joke. Since nothing changes at the levels where our government actually executes its decisions, then nothing actually changes.Instead of solving anything, we just keep doing the same things over and over and over again; wondering why the same things keep happening. The whole thing needs chucked and it's time to try something new. That doesn't involve the Left or the Right or anyone currently in power. They've had their shot and they've failed.Unfortunately it's our own fault. We've all fallen asleep at the wheel, and now we're paying for it. Instead of taking an active role in our government, asking where the money is being spent and why, demanding accountability, and actually engaging in our civic duties:We all bitch about how bad things are, and come November vote for the same people year in and year out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted July 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 2011 wanna save money? GTFO of two wars.Broken Obama promise 36,754. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jblosser Posted July 26, 2011 Report Share Posted July 26, 2011 (edited) Tax the wealthy? They're not paying their share?Figures from tax year 2008 (latest I could find in a quick search, figures only include tax returns with a positive Adjusted Gross Income (AGI), not returns that were filed merely to receive a stimulus check):The top 1% (AGI > $380,354) of tax returns paid 38.0% of all federal individual income taxes yet earned 20.0 percent of adjusted gross income.The top 5% (AGI > $159,619) paid 58.7% of federal individual income taxes yet earned 34.7% of the nation's adjusted gross income.The top 50% (AGI > $33,038) paid 97.3% of federal individual income taxes.So, the bottom 50% (that would be half of the taxpayers in the country for those of you that are math-challenged) pay only 2.7% of all federal individual income tax.So, yup, the wealthy aren't doing their part. Tax 'em some more.Source: Internal Revenue Service Edited July 26, 2011 by jblosser added source Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fox_racing_guy Posted July 26, 2011 Report Share Posted July 26, 2011 Barack Hussein Odumba, 2006 - "The fact that we're here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means 'The buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit." So what is different in 2011 that changed his mind? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamez Posted July 26, 2011 Report Share Posted July 26, 2011 (edited) I personally think this is all B.S.The debt ceiling has been raised 102 times to date so wtf is the problem now.Politicians. Washington has become such a crooked place with so much "my way or the highway" that nothing productive occurs there anymore. Washington needs a reality check and its unfortunate that 75% of Americans vote based on a popularity contest. Sure a black president is good for Americas image but when the white house and house or the house and the senate are split party its bad for American progress simply because everyone has their own stupid agendas.Americans need to show politicans that if they inhibit progress ( such as the rediculous garbage happening now ) that they will not serve another term.Unfortunately this would require America to "wake up" but that won't happen. We can't even keep our society from becoming obese even though we know exactly what causes it. Edited July 27, 2011 by Jamez Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drc32-0 Posted July 28, 2011 Report Share Posted July 28, 2011 (edited) Barack Hussein Odumba, 2006 - "The fact that we're here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means 'The buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit." So what is different in 2011 that changed his mind?I take it you didn't see the graph on our debt in the Sunday Columbus dispatch?It was trending down until the village idiot from Texas took over,and then off to the races skyward.Twice as much spent as Obama.It amazes me how re-pukes forget the stinking pile of shit left behind from the Bush/Chaney cartel...and Obama is supposed to fix it all in a year or two?We'll be at least twenty years digging ourselves out of that mess.And the re-pukes want the same old dumdshit that has been destroying the middle class since the Ray-gun era.Of course no one is mentioning the root cause of all this mess...greedy republican C.E.O.s off shoring all those jobs to their communist partners in China.And they call Obama a socialist.Of course,the corrupt bankers like our governor didn't help either. Edited July 28, 2011 by drc32-0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted July 28, 2011 Report Share Posted July 28, 2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=1http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/the-chart-that-should-accompany-all-discussions-of-the-debt-ceiling/242484/It’s based on data from the Congressional Budget Office and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Its significance is not partisan (who’s “to blame” for the deficit) but intellectual. It demonstrates the utter incoherence of being very concerned about a structural federal deficit but ruling out of consideration the policy that was largest single contributor to that deficit, namely the Bush-era tax cuts.An additional significance of the chart: it identifies policy changes, the things over which Congress and Administration have some control, as opposed to largely external shocks—like the repercussions of the 9/11 attacks or the deep worldwide recession following the 2008 financial crisis. Those external events make a big difference in the deficit, and they are the major reason why deficits have increased faster in absolute terms during Obama’s first two years than during the last two under Bush. (In a recession, tax revenues plunge, and government spending goes up - partly because of automatic programs like unemployment insurance, and partly in a deliberate attempt to keep the recession from getting worse.) If you want, you could even put the spending for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in this category: those were policy choices, but right or wrong they came in response to an external shock.*The point is that governments can respond to but not control external shocks. That’s why we call them “shocks.” Governments can control their policies. And the policy that did the most to magnify future deficits is the Bush-era tax cuts. You could argue that the stimulative effect of those cuts is worth it (“deficits don’t matter” etc). But you cannot logically argue that we absolutely must reduce deficits, but that we absolutely must also preserve every penny of those tax cuts. Which I believe precisely describes the House Republican position.After the jump, from a previous “The Chart That Should…” positing, an illustration of the respective roles of external shock and deliberate policy change in creating the deficit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted July 28, 2011 Report Share Posted July 28, 2011 pile of shit left behind from the Bush/Chaney cartel...and Obama is supposed to fix it all in a year or two? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drc32-0 Posted August 1, 2011 Report Share Posted August 1, 2011 (edited) Jeez,where did all the republicans go?Throw a few FACTS at them and they disappear.They must be over at oxycotin Rush's place brewing up the next socialist Obama b.s.When you show them in a gragh exactly how bad the last republican was it's pretty hard to defend the same old repuke b.s...tax cuts for the rich does not create jobs.At least not here,maybe in their socialist partner country.Bush tax cuts,socialist off shoring and corrupt bankers(think Kasich) caused our financial problems in Ohio and the nation.It's just the facts. Edited August 1, 2011 by drc32-0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted August 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 1, 2011 Jeez,where did all the republicans go?Throw a few FACTS at them and they disappear.They must be over at oxycotin Rush's place brewing up the next socialist Obama b.s.When you show them in a gragh exactly how bad the last republican was it's pretty hard to defend the same old repuke b.s...tax cuts for the rich does not create jobs.At least not here,maybe in their socialist partner country.Bush tax cuts,socialist off shoring and corrupt bankers(think Kasich) caused our financial problems in Ohio and the nation.It's just the facts. Spaces after punctuation for the win.I take it you didn't see the graph on our debt in the Sunday Columbus dispatch?It was trending down until the village idiot from Texas took over,and then off to the races skyward.Twice as much spent as Obama.It amazes me how re-pukes forget the stinking pile of shit left behind from the Bush/Chaney cartel...and Obama is supposed to fix it all in a year or two?We'll be at least twenty years digging ourselves out of that mess.And the re-pukes want the same old dumdshit that has been destroying the middle class since the Ray-gun era.Of course no one is mentioning the root cause of all this mess...greedy republican C.E.O.s off shoring all those jobs to their communist partners in China.And they call Obama a socialist.Of course,the corrupt bankers like our governor didn't help either. Sorry, must have missed that. How about you cite the reference? Link to the article online? Numbers from the graph? Anything other than your word about this awesome graph?Hating on Bush is easy. However the fact remains, he raised the national debt from $5T to $10T over eight years and two wars. Obama has raised the debt another $4.5T in just three years. I'm no math major, but... Now sure, you can blame the Republicans and Bush for Obama having to pay for things Bush caused. A great example would be the war in Afghanistan Obama promised to pull the troops out of within one year of being office. Oh wait... Well, maybe he helped stop the rampant foreclosures caused by Bush and Republicans with his foreclosure prevention fund that he promised. Oh wait, he didn't do that either. Maybe he saved us some money ending no-bid contracts over XX amount like he promised? Oh noes... he didn't fulfill that promise either. Hmm... Well surely he managed to pay for the national service plan without increasing the debt by making cuts like he promised. Really? He didn't? You don't say? Well how about the promise of reducing the budget by dramatically reducing the amount of earmarks? No shit!? He didn't do that either? Huh. Well maybe the bailouts of the banks and automakers kept unemployment under 10%? No? Weird. Well, I'm going to go put on my fancy evening coat, drink a 50yr old scotch, and smoke a Cuban cigar while trying to find tax loopholes to avoid paying taxes. Muwahahahaha. /evil laughterThe facts are we've been lied to and now is the time to do something about it. Stop electing the liars and thieves. PS: I've said it before but in case you missed it, I'm not a Republican.PSS: I'm just being a dick. I hate both sides of the isle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted August 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 1, 2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=1http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/the-chart-that-should-accompany-all-discussions-of-the-debt-ceiling/242484/http://sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/GAO%20Fed%20Investigation.pdfJust saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted August 1, 2011 Report Share Posted August 1, 2011 What exactly am I supposed to be looking for there with regards to the debt that Bush's tax cuts ran up, wars, and such? For all the breaks Bush gave the wealthy, err, I mean, "job creators" they sure didn't create a lot of jobs compared to Bubba Clinton and his tax increases....http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/The report in your link is regarding financial reform like the Dodd-Frank act, which has been infested with lobbyists and is so watered down it's pathetic. I'm just trying to make the full connection that what it has to do with this discussion beyond not bailing out gamblers on Wall Street. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod38um Posted August 1, 2011 Report Share Posted August 1, 2011 (edited) How much did Bush spend on average per day during his presidency? It’s pretty easy to figure out: $607 billion/365 days = $1.66 billion per day. That’s a lot of spending, Georgie. Shame on you!But compared to Obama’s $5 BILLION per day? Obama spent well over three times more per day every single day than did Bush. http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2011/07/28/who-spent-more-average-bush-vs-average-obama-spending-per-day-proves-obama-most-reckless-and-irresponsible-ever/ Edited August 1, 2011 by Rod38um Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted August 1, 2011 Report Share Posted August 1, 2011 2009 was Bush's deficit he signed... not Obama's... nice try though. Per that chart, it shows that Obama reduced it from Bush's 2009 spending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod38um Posted August 1, 2011 Report Share Posted August 1, 2011 2009 was Bush's deficit he signed... not Obama's... nice try though. Per that chart, it shows that Obama reduced it from Bush's 2009 spending.You're right, It was Bush's fault that Obama passed his first failed stimulus his first month in office in 09. I keep forgetting that everything is "Bush's fault" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted August 1, 2011 Report Share Posted August 1, 2011 Those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it.Not a big fan of understanding "Lesson's Learned" huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.