If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(American Thinker)   Congressman John Conyers (D-umbfounded) confused and frightened by increasing Congressional opinion to actually, GASP, cut the US budget   (americanthinker.com) divider line 209
    More: Asinine, John Conyers  
•       •       •

8241 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Jul 2011 at 11:46 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



209 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-07-01 02:34:54 PM  

Infernalist: Nocens: Infernalist: Nocens: tlchwi02: ForgotMyTowel: Who said the Pentagon's budget can't be cut? Why allow 1-2% (and its larger than that but whatever) in fraud when it can be stopped? Why go on record moaning about how unamerican it is for republicans to want to cut funding to programs that are mired in fraud. A better answer would be "how about instead of cutting the WIC budger by X%, why don't we keep it at the current funding levels and instead use that X% to clamp down on fraud a waste while keeping the women and children fed." Who could argue with that?

because they aren't talking about cutting fraud. If they were, i'd agree with them. They want to cut everything because they morally believe that people who are poor are inferior and bad. That's not at all about cutting fraud.


Yes, it's because they're poor and inferior. It has nothing to do with $14+ trillion debt, jackass.

They could abolish the whole WIC/Welfare/Foodstamp troika and it'd come nowhere close to fixing 'that' mess.

Now, raising taxes back to pre-Reagan levels, that'd fix the problem in a heartbeat. How's that grab you, retard?


It still wouldn't touch the deficit you ignorant mouth breathing regurgitating jackass.

Not immediately, you you you...young republican you.

lol


Jackass, I'm a 50 year old engineer who agrees my taxes will have to be raised to tackle the problem.

However, you're living off my taxes and my work. My portion supporting your free loading ass needs to be thrown in the pot first.
 
2011-07-01 02:39:21 PM  

mojodragon: When you give a tax cut to the rich, they put it in the bank and make interest off it, enabling the banks to make more loans. Poor people end up taking the loans to buy a car, house, etc., causing a lending bubble that eventually bursts, sending the economy further into a downward spiral.


The crack pipe has spoken.

Carry on.
 
2011-07-01 02:40:13 PM  

XveryYpettyZ: ForgotMyTowel: tlchwi02: ForgotMyTowel: I know many that resent seeing millions going to the welfare system but who will be the first to give money at their church or at fundraisers. They'll be the first to volunteer during natural disasters (yes even ones that affect minorities).


See, now you're starting to come dangerously close to the stupidity that is espousing reliance on voluntary taxation.

Here's my problem with cutting food stamps, WIC, student lunch and breakfast subsidies and the EPA: we're effectively robbing from children (born and unborn) to pay for a better life for the elderly: Medicare, Social Security-- 1 trillion dollars of our 3.5 trillion dollar budget every year.

In business one of the guiding principles for achieving cost savings is the pareto principle (new window). The way I can tell that those proposing budget cuts on both sides aren't really serious about actually making real cuts is that BOTH sides have exempted the 3 largest chunks of the federal budget from any scrutiny at all. If defense, social security and medicare aren't on the table (45% of the federal budget) we're just screwing around on the edges of the problem. If we're going to make cuts that aren't really going to fix the problem, then I cannot support any proposal that engages in political posturing on the backs of the future of people who will have to be paying for MY retirement.


I'm not even remotely suggesting voluntary taxation or relying on charity to house and feed the poor. My entire point was that by in large, republicans aren't some evil people who spit on the poor and less fortunate while walking down the street, lighting cigars with $100 bills.

You average everyday republican cares about the poor starving mother as much as the average everyday democrat. The difference is how they view the effectiveness of the current welfare system. Republicans see and recognize that major changes need to be made in order to make the system effective. Without making those changes, you're throwing money down a hole. We are currently spending more money on welfare programs like WIC than is necessary to run the program and feed the hungry. With reform, we can cut a good deal out of the budget and still achieve the necessary goals.

I understand that other cuts in other areas are still necessary. TFA just happens to be about WIC, thus my focus on it. But saying that its such a small amount so we shouldn't bother with it is a lot like saying I'm $3000/month in debt but I'm still going to get my nails done twice a month. After all, compared to how much money I owe, it's a drop in the bucket.

No no no, you need to cut back everywhere. Defense, social security, Medicare, entitlements (both for the rich and the poor), etc. It all needs to be done. Frankly I fail to see why this is even a partisan issue, other than the fact that this is politics of course.
 
2011-07-01 02:40:35 PM  

RulerOfNone: And this got the front page.
Drew, what the fark are you doing?


I think it's a hint for us to leave the computers and go play outside.
 
2011-07-01 02:41:38 PM  

Big Man On Campus: Rep. John Conyers, D-Detroit, said Congress will have reached an "all time low" in his four decades in Washington if it passes such a budget plan.

"It is simply un-American, immoral, heartless and unconscionable to take food away from the mouths of hungry children in the name of deficit reduction," he said

I'll tell you what is "un-American" ---> turning to the government to feed you. Being an American means being an independent entity that contributes to the whole but does not expect or rely on others to keep one alive/functioning. You want food? You want survival? Go earn your way. Mother nature doesn't have a food-stamp plan for leaf-eaters, which is why animals migrate. There is no unemployment handout for any other living thing on earth, no severance package, no health care. They live and they die by their own efforts.

I personally don't mind such programs promoting breast feeding and giving out extra food when times are good and we can afford it. But it is abject nonsense to call it un-american to tighten one's belt and roll up the sleeves by spending less on that which truly does not matter and working on what does.


You know what's UnAmerican?

Being a selfish bastard, like you are. From this point on, you are no longer allowed to use the roads, internet, power network, phone networks, and clean air that the money I have given to the government to provide these common services to the compassionate of us.

And if you're that worried about money, then have words with the @ssholes that ruined the banking system, and took us to war with every brown person on the earth. That's where all that frickin money went.

\snort
 
2011-07-01 02:43:05 PM  

l3randon: Nightsweat: Actually if you just let the Bush tax cuts expire, the budget goes back into balance even at current spending levels.

No, it doesn't. Tax rates do not exist in a vacuum.


Tell it to the GAO. They're the ones who said it.
 
2011-07-01 02:44:20 PM  

Close2TheEdge: it makes Jesus cry.


If it's harshing jesus' day, then we better get busy.
 
2011-07-01 02:51:09 PM  

l3randon: Nightsweat: Actually if you just let the Bush tax cuts expire, the budget goes back into balance even at current spending levels.

No, it doesn't. Tax rates do not exist in a vacuum.


But the top 5% wealth holders do? They don't owe anyone anything.
 
2011-07-01 02:52:37 PM  

Akula308: gameshowhost: Conservatism:

[i52.tinypic.com image 402x307]

Actually, we don't. See 'Laffer Curve'.


Oh my goodness. I've never heard of that! I should've paid attention more during my undergraduate degree in economics and during graduate business school. =|

See: By your *actions*, that's basically what you believe the curve actually looks like. MOAR TAX CUTZ! KEEPZ CUTTING! MOAR! MOAR!

/never mind the comically-oversimplified notion of only one tax
//and the fact that 0% and 100% tax are the only known revenue points
///and that the 'curve' could look like almost anything
 
2011-07-01 02:55:03 PM  

Rockdrummer: So let me get this straight - Dems have been in control since 2006, ran up the deficit under Barry to a bazillion trillion, the Republicans say you don't have the money to pay for these things and the Democrats are blaming the Republicans for the deficit?

Uh huh.


Yep, that's how it happened.

There was no deficit on Jan 20, and the economy was screaming along at a fantastic rate. Health care was cheap, jobs were plentiful, and everyone had a farking Unicorn in their backyard.

The Obumbler showed up and destroyed it all with his Kenyan darkness.

\the Democrats are spineless
\\you know this, you've been workin' it for 30 years
\\\you went right into the sh*thead file the moment you dropped that "Barry"
 
2011-07-01 02:55:04 PM  

Infernalist: Now, raising taxes back to pre-Reagan levels, that'd fix the problem in a heartbeat. How's that grab you, retard?


Can I have my deductions on credit card debt and real estate tax shelters back as well? It's called "effective tax rate".
 
2011-07-01 02:55:12 PM  

ringersol: Because anyone who didn't vote for war and tax cuts was branded a traitor and dragged through the mud?
If you're accusing the Democrats of being spineless, I don't think you'll find anyone to argue with you.

If you're accusing the Democrats of _wanting_ those things, that's a very different argument.
Though it's academic and pointless. Since the desires of the party that capitulates just don't matter if they're just going to capitulate.


Obviously they were Democrat-inspired programs. That's why they had to override Bush's veto on every single one of them.
 
2011-07-01 02:59:42 PM  

GORDON: If we can do without $2 Trillion in spending, why did the Democrats even fund those programs in the first place when they controlled Congress for last 6 of Bush's 8 years?


Democrats controlled congress for the last six years of the Bush admin? Really?

I'm going to have a flat spot on my forehead if I keep reading this thread.
 
2011-07-01 03:00:04 PM  

Weaver95: tlchwi02: yeah, i think its pretty heartless to cut food for needy children when you wont raise taxes on the ultra-wealthy upper classes at all, even though their taxes are already at historical lows.

and it could be argued that it was largely their actions that caused the economic meltdown we had. I think goldman sachs had a lot more to do with it then an unwed mother trying to fee her kids

Ah, but to the Republicans, that unwed mother is a morally weak and needs to be punished for her lifestyle. the rich guy is rich because GOD made him rich! you can't punish the rich guy for doing the will of god and reward the unwed mother for being an immoral slut.

/this is what Republicans actually believe.


Who does Goldman give more money to, Pubs, or Dems? :)
 
2011-07-01 03:06:22 PM  

Nocens: Infernalist: Nocens: Infernalist: Nocens: tlchwi02: ForgotMyTowel: Who said the Pentagon's budget can't be cut? Why allow 1-2% (and its larger than that but whatever) in fraud when it can be stopped? Why go on record moaning about how unamerican it is for republicans to want to cut funding to programs that are mired in fraud. A better answer would be "how about instead of cutting the WIC budger by X%, why don't we keep it at the current funding levels and instead use that X% to clamp down on fraud a waste while keeping the women and children fed." Who could argue with that?

because they aren't talking about cutting fraud. If they were, i'd agree with them. They want to cut everything because they morally believe that people who are poor are inferior and bad. That's not at all about cutting fraud.


Yes, it's because they're poor and inferior. It has nothing to do with $14+ trillion debt, jackass.

They could abolish the whole WIC/Welfare/Foodstamp troika and it'd come nowhere close to fixing 'that' mess.

Now, raising taxes back to pre-Reagan levels, that'd fix the problem in a heartbeat. How's that grab you, retard?


It still wouldn't touch the deficit you ignorant mouth breathing regurgitating jackass.

Not immediately, you you you...young republican you.

lol

Jackass, I'm a 50 year old engineer who agrees my taxes will have to be raised to tackle the problem.

However, you're living off my taxes and my work. My portion supporting your free loading ass needs to be thrown in the pot first.


So, now that you've proven tlchwi02's point I assume you'll be bowing out?
 
2011-07-01 03:09:02 PM  
Did anybody point out that subby left out an "S" in Congressional?
 
2011-07-01 03:15:40 PM  

gameshowhost: Akula308: gameshowhost: Conservatism:

[i52.tinypic.com image 402x307]

Actually, we don't. See 'Laffer Curve'.

Oh my goodness. I've never heard of that! I should've paid attention more during my undergraduate degree in economics and during graduate business school. =|

See: By your *actions*, that's basically what you believe the curve actually looks like. MOAR TAX CUTZ! KEEPZ CUTTING! MOAR! MOAR!

/never mind the comically-oversimplified notion of only one tax
//and the fact that 0% and 100% tax are the only known revenue points
///and that the 'curve' could look like almost anything




Well you sure told me Mr. "I got a degree in economics"...my point was that your chart was a strawman. Unless that's what you actually think conservatives believe. In which case, you should have gone to a better school.
 
2011-07-01 03:15:59 PM  
1. Repeal the Bush/Obama tax cuts for millionaires
2. Means test Social Security
3. Balance
 
2011-07-01 03:17:25 PM  

FireBreathingLiberal: 1. Repeal the Bush/Obama tax cuts for millionaires
2. Means test Social Security
3. Balance


2 is a bad idea because then it turns Social Security into a welfare program and makes it vulnerable to cuts/elimination. Removing the cap on contributions is better than means testing.
 
2011-07-01 03:18:13 PM  

ForgotMyTowel: No no no, you need to cut back everywhere. Defense, social security, Medicare, entitlements (both for the rich and the poor), etc. It all needs to be done. Frankly I fail to see why this is even a partisan issue, other than the fact that this is politics of course.


Right, but you could cut the entire non-defense discretionary budget and you still wouldn't close the current budget deficit. Entitlement reform is everything.
 
2011-07-01 03:19:43 PM  

Nocens: Infernalist: Nocens: Infernalist: Nocens: tlchwi02: ForgotMyTowel: Who said the Pentagon's budget can't be cut? Why allow 1-2% (and its larger than that but whatever) in fraud when it can be stopped? Why go on record moaning about how unamerican it is for republicans to want to cut funding to programs that are mired in fraud. A better answer would be "how about instead of cutting the WIC budger by X%, why don't we keep it at the current funding levels and instead use that X% to clamp down on fraud a waste while keeping the women and children fed." Who could argue with that?

because they aren't talking about cutting fraud. If they were, i'd agree with them. They want to cut everything because they morally believe that people who are poor are inferior and bad. That's not at all about cutting fraud.


Yes, it's because they're poor and inferior. It has nothing to do with $14+ trillion debt, jackass.

They could abolish the whole WIC/Welfare/Foodstamp troika and it'd come nowhere close to fixing 'that' mess.

Now, raising taxes back to pre-Reagan levels, that'd fix the problem in a heartbeat. How's that grab you, retard?


It still wouldn't touch the deficit you ignorant mouth breathing regurgitating jackass.

Not immediately, you you you...young republican you.

lol

Jackass, I'm a 50 year old engineer who agrees my taxes will have to be raised to tackle the problem.

However, you're living off my taxes and my work. My portion supporting your free loading ass needs to be thrown in the pot first.


Thank you for proving a point, retard. lol
 
2011-07-01 03:20:30 PM  
Small Government Conservative + Balanced Budget Amendment viewpoint should be:

Spending side:
Hi, Mr. Congressman! Here is what taxes brought in last year. You may spend 98% of that this year on operations (capital/infrastructure separated). 1% MUST be placed in a contingency fund for emergencies (thinking natural disasters) that earns interest (the interest MUST be spent on debt principal reduction) and 1% MUST be used for debt principal reduction. Two cases allow for spending beyond this amount - a declared natural disaster, the cost of which exceeds current contingency funds, and a declared war (not an authorization for military action, a REAL declared war - big difference between these two things). Government spending on operations WILL NOT exceed receipts. Bond issuance will be limited to emergencies as above, or capital/infrastructure investments with an expected usable life longer than the term of the bonds.

Budgets shall consist not of $ amounts allocated, but % of total receipts (e.g., 5% Military, 5% Justice, etc.). Percentages may be adjusted annually. Failure to reach an agreement by October 1st (beginning of Fiscal year) results in previous year's % allocation to be used, with no increase in dollar amounts - any $ overage equally split between debt reduction and contingency fund. (In other words, inaction or inability to reach an agreement does not materially affect programs/agencies, assuming same or increased revenues - they get the same % of federal receipts, up to the same $ amount received in previous fiscal year - if $ amounts are less due to lower receipts, budget will be slashed equally across the board.)

All benefits paid out are means tested.

Social Security retirement will be phased out. If you are 46.9 (20 years younger than current retirement age) or younger, you will continue to pay the tax until the last recipient dies (47 or older). If you are 57 or younger, retirment age is set at 72. SS payments will be means tested. SS payouts may not exceed SS tax receipts - this will probably reduce benefits. Assistance to retired persons with limited recources will be covered by other existing programs for housing assistance, food assistance, utilities assistance, etc. Other SS programs (disability, widows, etc.) will be phased out and covered by other social assistance programs.

Revenue Side:
Individual Income tax:
Either 1) Eliminate it, and move to a nat'l sales tax that excludes food, housing, childcare, and medicine, etc. or
2) Make it much simpler: e.g. 10% of income above poverty level (with # of persons in household allowance), with an additional 1% applied for each X of poverty level, up to a maximum of 25% - a household would not reach 25% until they are making 15x the poverty level. No deductions. A household of 5 would pay 10% of income over 25,790, 11% of income between 51,580 and 77,370, etc. - a household of 5 with an annual income of $67,000 would pay about 3,719 in taxes - the same HH would not reach 25% level until they were making 386,850. (Based on '09 poverty levels (new window)). Interest on savings or dividends from investment are NOT taxed as income.

Capital Gains:
Flat 10%. Only applied when gains are monetized; in other words, if I buy real estate or equity at X, then sell it at X+Y, I pay 10% of Y to taxes. If I buy real estate or equity at Z within same fiscal year, I pay (10% of Y)-Z. No deduction for losses. This should encourage wise investment!

Corporate Income tax:
Eliminate it. Corporate taxes are simply passed along to the consumer, anyway. I know this is going to make the libs scream - until they see the numbers for how much this reduces prices (or should - businesses are free to keep their prices high while their competitors drop prices).

Inheritance tax:
Eliminate it. The money and property have already been taxed enough times before being passed along to heirs. Why penalize people who are frugal or invest wisely, or whose parents did so?
 
2011-07-01 03:21:22 PM  
What this country needs is a theocracy where all social programs are cut, which affords more subsudies and tax cuts for corporations. I know this does not cover the difference, so all regulations are nullified, and the regulatory branches of government are closed for good.
Now i realise we cannot have anarchy so we need to have much stricter laws, which the privately owned prisons can use the labor from these scofflaws so they can pay their own way just as our founding fathers imagined.
From stitching together all the current mainstream GOP talking points, this is their end game.
 
2011-07-01 03:22:32 PM  

ForgotMyTowel: I'm not even remotely suggesting voluntary taxation or relying on charity to house and feed the poor. My entire point was that by in large, republicans aren't some evil people who spit on the poor and less fortunate while walking down the street, lighting cigars with $100 bills.


and its nice you say that, but presently their actions speak louder than words. Under the guise of "rescueing the budget" they are feverishly defending a budget plan that cuts social programs for the poor despite it being shown repeatedly that it wont help fix the budget issues while still defending tax cuts to the ultra rich, an ongoing series of unwinnable and unsustainable wars or cuts to the defense industry.

If republicans truly were the caring, passionate people you claim, why do their actual actions not support that? its all well and good to claim they are the first to show up in a disaster but right now they specifically want to take food from starving children without reasonable justification. Those two positions are opposite positions
 
2011-07-01 03:24:18 PM  

ForgotMyTowel: I think you're hopelessly optimistic about the "tiny" percentage of fraud in social programs. I believe 100% that there are people who need the money and who will directly benefit from it in a positive way. I would never advocate cutting off emergency funds to children and those that are temporarily down on their luck. The problem is fraud is so rampant that it completely undermines the goal of the program, not to mention the public's opinion of it.


I just don't see how WIC fits this mold.

Having worked in a grocery store for way too long, I helped a lot of people get started on their WIC programs: showing them what they could buy and how it worked for their first time through the system. These people were almost universally distressed at the life situations that caused them to be there. They generally had very young children and no father in tow, and struggling to hold down a job and raise an infant at the same time. They were embarrassed to be where they were. Often angry. Almost never pleased at their windfall of free milk and bread. In all that time I met only a single person who even joked about how WIC was a great way to get some extra cash.

Maybe people are able to stay on the WIC program longer than they should be able to; maybe the WIC abusers shop at higher-brow stores than I worked at. Maybe my state is especially devoid of cheaters (ha! I live in Florida). And probably we should both agree that neither your nor my personal observations are worth squat when it comes to telling how many people are really cheating. But I just don't see where you're coming from.

I definitely don't think fraud is "so rampant that it completely undermines the goal of the program." The only way I can imagine you getting that impression is if you're never around the people on WIC. If you only hear about it on the news, I could see that happening.

/ Note: WIC is not the same as food stamps
 
2011-07-01 03:39:47 PM  
2) Make it much simpler: e.g. 10% of income above poverty level (with # of persons in household allowance), with an additional 1% applied for each X of poverty level, up to a maximum of 25% - a household would not reach 25% until they are making 15x the poverty level. No deductions. A household of 5 would pay 10% of income over 25,790, 11% of income between 51,580 and 77,370, etc. - a household of 5 with an annual income of $67,000 would pay about 3,719 in taxes - the same HH would not reach 25% level until they were making 386,850. (Based on '09 poverty levels (new window)). Interest on savings or dividends from investment are NOT taxed as income.

Sorry to quote myself on what was already a tl;dr post... Meant to extend the example. The family of 5, if they made 1,000,000, would pay ~219,000 in taxes....
 
2011-07-01 03:57:26 PM  

txhitech: American Thinker links should automatically have the Satire tag pinned to it.


We could totally do this....with the power of CODE!!

/Not you and I, but...you know.
 
2011-07-01 04:12:15 PM  

Grenwulf: Capital Gains:
Flat 10%. Only applied when gains are monetized; in other words, if I buy real estate or equity at X, then sell it at X+Y, I pay 10% of Y to taxes. If I buy real estate or equity at Z within same fiscal year, I pay (10% of Y)-Z. No deduction for losses. This should encourage wise investment!


You actually want to lower the cap gains tax?

I do love the "this should encourage wise investment" line. I could have sworn the desire to actually make money on investments is what encourages wise investment. How exactly would a huge reduction to the cap gains tax further encourage wise investment?

And don't even get me started on the idea to replace income tax with a sales tax. That idea is so profoundly retarded on its face it only serves to identify people who don't think things through. Replacing income tax with a sales tax would be the greatest boon to organized crime since prohibition. I'm just not sure how creating a massive black market for all goods is going to save our economy.
 
2011-07-01 04:15:27 PM  

Grenwulf: Corporate Income tax:
Eliminate it. Corporate taxes are simply passed along to the consumer, anyway. I know this is going to make the libs scream - until they see the numbers for how much this reduces prices (or should - businesses are free to keep their prices high while their competitors drop prices).


No the people who scream when they hear the notion that all corporate taxes as passed on to the consumer are the people who have acquired even the most basic grasp of economics. They also tend to laugh when they hear the ridiculous utopian fantasy that if we lower taxes on corporate profits they will certainly lower prices.
 
2011-07-01 04:18:42 PM  
I am all for cutting waste in programs, and enforcement of laws regarding that waste, but what I haven't heard yet is how cutting funding for these programs helps them eliminate that waste. When a company needs to "right size" their number of employees, they tend to bring in experts to look at the numbers and find areas with excess human capital. A net gain is achieved, though money has to be input into the system initially to realize those gains later. Rather than attacking these programs' whole kitty of funding, why not establish reform laws and mandates specific to the programs. An immediate cut to funding will only make these organizations less able to police themselves, as personnel cuts are the primary initial cost centers impacted by large cuts. If there is genuine waste or abuse of the system, analysis and correction would result in substantial long term savings.

Ultimately this is the problem; Republicans want immediate, deep and permanent cuts to everything, which to be achieved means immediate personnel reductions; cut funding, cut jobs and efficiency. Establish strong mandates and "right size" funding goals for the organizations, giving a positive enticement for reducing fraud and inefficiencies and let these organizations do the work. Democrats want to protect these organizations, but have no genuine solution to the problems these organizations have; let's bring in the people who can fix it, and get that accomplished. It happens every day in business, so if the government is as ponderous and inefficient as everyone is saying, it should be easy for a reduction expert to locate and eliminate waste.

It should be blisteringly obvious to everyone that there's never been an enticement at the level of these programs to produce efficiency and eliminate waste (at least not since WWII). Develop an enticement, establish a mandate to cut waste and graft in all federally funded services, and bring in advisers wherever needed to help meet goals. Everyone can be supportive of that; it increases fairness in the programs while reducing long term costs and establishes a new concept in federal funding; positive reinforcement for eliminating waste.
 
2011-07-01 04:23:39 PM  

essucht: shower_in_my_socks: The Democrats have offered $2 TRILLION in cuts.

So $2T over 10 years vs adding $1T per year to the budget since they took congress in 2006? What a deal!


I can make up a bunch of numbers too. Where is your empirical data to back up your BS claim?
 
2011-07-01 04:40:43 PM  

Grenwulf: wall of text


TL;DR it's "Derp! Cut taxes so revenue goes up!"

We live in a trickle-up game. This encourages stability but ultimately destroys itself unless someone keep resetting the board every so often.
 
2011-07-01 04:52:52 PM  

Thrag: Grenwulf: Corporate Income tax:
Eliminate it. Corporate taxes are simply passed along to the consumer, anyway. I know this is going to make the libs scream - until they see the numbers for how much this reduces prices (or should - businesses are free to keep their prices high while their competitors drop prices).

No the people who scream when they hear the notion that all corporate taxes as passed on to the consumer are the people who have acquired even the most basic grasp of economics. They also tend to laugh when they hear the ridiculous utopian fantasy that if we lower taxes on corporate profits they will certainly lower prices.


OK - we aren't going to agree on that point. If shareholders demand X% profit, and corporations can achieve that by reducing prices by the amount they would have paid in taxes (not to mention reducing staff that previously calculated/avoided taxes), why wouldn't they reduce prices to achieve competitive advantage or remain on competitive par? We aren't going to agree - you think I am economically ignorant/utopian for believing competition would work to consumers' advantage, I think you are economically ignorant/anti-corp for believing it won't. Truth probably lies somewhere in between. Prices would probably go down slightly and coporate profits would probably increase slightly.

You actually want to lower the cap gains tax?

Should have filled in a variable "X" for the percent - I don't care what the percent is. As I understand it, though, you are now taxed on NET capital gains/losses - in other words, again I am admitting partial ignorance, I think you can sell X for a $10 profit and Y for a $10 loss and owe no taxes. I am proposing a tax on the realized profit WITHOUT allowing offsetting losses. If I have that fact wrong, mea culpa, and we can work out my stupidity - and not allowing write-offs for losses MIGHT discourage some risky investment.

And don't even get me started on the idea to replace income tax with a sales tax. That idea is so profoundly retarded on its face it only serves to identify people who don't think things through. Replacing income tax with a sales tax would be the greatest boon to organized crime since prohibition. I'm just not sure how creating a massive black market for all goods is going to save our economy.

I want to encourage savings and investment - I don't believe it would create an "off-books" economy any more than the current system encourages people to be paid "under the table". Again, we probably wouldn't agree on that. I prefer to keep an income tax, actually, since it would be too open to political wrangling as to what to include on the "exempt" list. Excise taxes on luxuries? I don't know - just throwing an idea out there.

Mainly, I want to force Congress' collective hands on a balanced budget, and not allow them to deficit spend, except in the case of true national emergencies. Beyond that, it is all details.
 
2011-07-01 04:58:46 PM  

Undulation: Ultimately this is the problem; Republicans want immediate, deep and permanent cuts to everything, which to be achieved means immediate personnel reductions; cut funding, cut jobs and efficiency.


Everything except for what their constituents want: defense, Medicare, Social Security. Oh, and bridges to nowhere, agricultural subsidies, corporate welfare and oil company subsidies.

Establish strong mandates and "right size" funding goals for the organizations, giving a positive enticement for reducing fraud and inefficiencies and let these organizations do the work. Democrats want to protect these organizations, but have no genuine solution to the problems these organizations have; let's bring in the people who can fix it, and get that accomplished. It happens every day in business, so if the government is as ponderous and inefficient as everyone is saying, it should be easy for a reduction expert to locate and eliminate waste.

Nowhere is this in any Republican budget. Their answer is, "cut funding, and let them try to figure out how to survive." Oh, and "privatize," because corporations aren't making enough money off government programs. And again, don't dare touch the 45% of the budget that their constituents want to keep.
 
2011-07-01 05:03:46 PM  

TheBigJerk: Grenwulf: wall of text

TL;DR it's "Derp! Cut taxes so revenue goes up!"

We live in a trickle-up game. This encourages stability but ultimately destroys itself unless someone keep resetting the board every so often.


No, I don't believe cutting taxes is the answer - I believe in simplifying the tax code to reduce the ability to cheat/game the system. I am not an ignorant derper. I want to see taxes AND spending decreased. We have to pay off the last 40 years somehow, so taxes are not going to decrease any time soon. The generations that have enjoyed the deficit spending government have to be made to pay for it now. Unfortunately, that means those of us who only partially enjoyed it and our children and grandchildren must also pay for it.

I do think that X% of 1000000 is still more than X% of 100000 (that is basic math). A "rate" of 35% that because of loopholes ends up really being much lower only serves to pacify the masses and employ accountants. Make it fair and allow for poverty level (as I did in my example), and flatten the tax rate and eliminate the loopholes. Simplification.
 
2011-07-01 05:18:36 PM  

Grenwulf: I want to encourage savings and investment - I don't believe it would create an "off-books" economy any more than the current system encourages people to be paid "under the table".


Reality and history disagree with you. Just look at the black market in cigarettes that has grown significantly in places like NYC under high cigarette taxes.
 
2011-07-01 06:11:50 PM  
The problem is what half they'd like to cut. I'd like to run for President on a Nuclear Submarines for Mexican Baby Healthcare platform.

Think I can get RedEmily for Veep?
 
2011-07-01 06:37:55 PM  

Spartan_Manhandler: I respond to known trolls


Please stop that.
 
2011-07-01 06:42:08 PM  

Grenwulf: No, I don't believe cutting taxes is the answer...I want to see taxes AND spending decreased


...

So anyways, you were saying about flat taxes...

I believe in simplifying the tax code to reduce the ability to cheat/game the system.

Sounds like a plan, but your plan also included exempting a whole crapload of income because it was corporate or capital gains or inheritance and just as you can throw in arbitrary exemptions, so can everyone else. That's how the system GETS gamed in the first place.

Not to mention you're still clinging to the supply-sider nonsense that investment spending is superior to consumer spending. Investment spending only "creates wealth" for the already wealthy, so if you want a "rising tide that lifts all boats" you're going to swamp most of them to lift a few mega-yachts.

And to take another quick tangent, sales taxes have exemptions to! In Texas there was a big debate (which the rich won) explaining how there should be a cap on sales tax so if I buy a peanut I pay 8.5% sales tax but if Ron Paul buys a mega-yacht he pays less than 1% in sales tax.

Bottom line, class warfare is real and the rich have been winning at the expense of the nation since Reagan was elected.
 
2011-07-01 07:17:47 PM  

ForgotMyTowel: Out of curiosity, does anyone have the numbers as far as how much of the WIC funds make it to the women and children? The quote provided above says $137m is used to feed 16,000 recipients. Is that $137m million annual? If that's the case are these women and children actually getting $700 or so a month in assistance? If not, how much do they get?


No, the quote said the State of Michigan gets $137M a year in subsidies.

It further says that Oakland County (the most affluent county in Michigan) has a record 16,000 recipients (I figured there would be that many alone in Hazel Tucky). The paragraph also tells you what the administrative costs are.

When I was on WIC, I got about $45 a month in coupons for milk, baby formula, non-cartoon sugar cereal and real cheese for two children. It is the reason I haven't eaten Velveeta since 1988. (No, I haven't been on WIC since 1988 - they don't let you use the coupons for processed cheese and totally cured me of that habit)

/second post that totally misinterpreted or completely misunderstood the figures in that paragraph.
//reading comprehension Nazi
 
2011-07-01 08:09:20 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: mojodragon: John Conyer? There was this creepy looking cop flashing your baby pics around, asking if I'd seen you. Good thing he got the spelling wrong, amiright?

I giggled.


I guffawed
 
2011-07-01 08:45:21 PM  

ForgotMyTowel: Infernalist Oh yes, people abuse the system, so let's abolish the system.

By that logic, we'd have no systems at all in this country.

You don't abolish a system simply because it's being mis-used. You find the abusers, punish them and keep the system clean.

Yes, because that's what I said. Abolish the program. Beacuse that's what republicans have been arguing, throw the whole welfare system out. Nice strawman.

What I'm saying is we CAN cut the money going into programs without reducing the benefit that's coming out. Fraud reduciton is one way(and a large one at that) to accomplish this. So is getting rid of the all the overhead. People are fark are happy to complain about top heavy corporations but never seem to complain about top heavy govt agencies. Both can stand to trim a lot of fat without affecting the final product.


Fraud detection actually costs a lot more than fraud itself - investigators are much more highly trained (and thus expensive) if you want anything better than dumb rent-a-cops lording over the poor masses. The computer programs to automatically database and sift out fraud cost billions of dollars to create and maintain at credit card companies and banks, so that's right out. The necessary in-system appeals cost money, outside prosecution costs an inordinate amount of money. Then you consider the reduced productivity of workers in an environment where they have to order background checks, tax returns, and statements from companies, be suspicious of everyone, have every approval or denial signed off by their manager and his director, etc. (I'm including everyone people complain about here: WIC, Worker's comp, disability, etc.) And then every time someone is caught and prosecuted, people somehow get the impression that there's much more fraud than there is and people aren't doing their jobs by catching fraudsters - despite that they just did.

Go ask any company over 100 people how much money they spend on fraud detection and prevention, internal and external. And then ask how much they still lose to fraud and then figure that there would still be more that wasn't dug up, but not much. All of that is a major financial burden and time sink on any company.

There's already a ton of red tape and fraud investigation that drives up costs, but because it doesn't eliminate 100%, it's ignored by a lot of people. The costs have to exist because the same people who complain about fraud will absolutely refuse to turn in fraudsters, figuring it's not their problem, or it's a friend, or whatever - it's just the nebulous others that's the problem. But whatever, because WIC is cheap and WIC fraud is small fish; disability fraud is more common and much more expensive, and insurance fraud even more so. All this arguing about WIC fraud is arguing over what amounts to a few tens of thousands over the whole country.
 
2011-07-01 08:50:35 PM  
Are there no work houses?
 
2011-07-01 10:22:24 PM  

nmiguy:
You see this is one of the things that is wrong with our government. 137 billion dollars for breast feeding promotion? Hello? You don't need to spend a single cent on that, women have been breast feeding kids since the dawn of man. Word of mouth will suffice. Nutrition education? Why you gotta spend so much money to teach people about healthy eating? Drug abuse education? Don't we already HAVE drug abuse eduction everywhere? Our politicians just tend to THROW money away without even considering if they are getting their money's worth. WIC is a good deal, it helps the poor from starving. But cuts are necessary.


Cuts are necessary ... in WIC? I don't believe you.

Any time someone talks about cutting the budget and doesn't talk about defunding, in whole or in part, one or more of the - what, SIX? - wars that we're engaged in, they are lying to you.
 
2011-07-01 11:00:48 PM  
Tax "Break" implies some sort of limitation of time. My lunch "break" is 30 mins or so. The break isn't doing anyone any favors, and it's clearly not enough to keep people from being butthurt about specific programs and demographics because their morals and beliefs don't match the folks like boehner.

Enforcing your beliefs on the rest of the world by way of cutting funding to programs you no likey isn't part of your job description.

Break time's over kids. Time for you to give back for all this vacation time you've had.
 
2011-07-01 11:28:01 PM  

Infernalist: It's this false narrative that "We're running out of money!! We have to CUT SPENDING NOW!!!".

No, we're not, and no, we don't.

It's not a case of mandatory cuts in social-net programs. It's a case where we need to increase revenue by returning tax rates to Pre-Reagan levels and reforming the tax code to close all the loopholes and dodges that the rich and big business use to avoid paying taxes year after year.


We hit the debt ceiling two months ago, so I'd say that's a good indicator that not only are we running out of money, we're also running out of CHINA'S money.

As far as your tax comment, you're half right. Reagan lowered the tax rates, but at the same time, he eliminated most deductions. The result was greater revenue for the government. Pre-Reagan tax rates would be those that Carter operated under. You remember Carter's administration, right? That was the one where we had a nice little recession going, increasing trouble with Iran, and soaring gas prices. It's simply that subsequent legislatures have added those deductions back to the tax code and crafted new ones since the last tax code overhaul in 1986.

It also goes without saying that government spending has increased exponentially. Any budget proposal needs to involve both revenue generation and spending cuts. Though I'm not saying those cuts necessarily must come entirely from entitlement programs, it's clear that everyone needs to tighten their belts, which means some cuts in those programs are likely.
 
2011-07-02 01:53:59 AM  
Fark it. They should just do what the Democrats want and get it over with. They're NEVER going to quit biatching and moaning til we do. Never cut one single dollar of spending EVER AGAIN. Then spend as much money as humanly possible on everything under the sun and give it all away to everyone who in their eyes is not "the rich". I say keep spending til enough money is spent that 5 generations from now still can't pay it off. Then when the whole country blows the fark up from all the damage, they STILL will be biatching about how Bush and the Republicans are at fault for it all.

That's pretty much what they want, in a nutshell.
 
2011-07-02 03:31:52 AM  

3StratMan:

You sure you didn't mean to sign up with 3StrawMan? Even most of the conservatives here actually try to refer to the actual budget before passing sweeping judgment...

Well-read Baron: We hit the debt ceiling two months ago, so I'd say that's a good indicator that not only are we running out of money, we're also running out of CHINA'S money.


US and German banks own most of the debt. China's portion is growing, but still pretty small - the amount of domestic capital that big business hand over, on the other hand, is truly frightening.
 
2011-07-02 05:15:56 AM  
Since no one seems to have said it yet, let's toss out a basic point:

Income levels for the wealthy show higher volatility than income levels for the rest of the population.

Yeah, we could arrange the tax code so all the revenue came from the wealthiest 5% of the public.. that segment already pays something like 40% of all personal income tax. Problem is, if the stock market performs badly, those people at the top 5% tend to feel it the most. It's not like they go broke or anything, but they end up paying less income tax for that year.

That's part of why we have budget problems right now. When the 5% of people who pay 40% of all personal income tax lost 30-40% of their net worth a few years ago, that took a big bite out of federal tax revenue.

The people who complain most about Republicans wanting to cut social programs don't seem to realize that 'tax the rich' means exposing those same programs to dramatic cuts any time the rich have a bad year in the stock market.

If you want stable budgets for social programs, you need stability in your tax revenue. Stability in the tax revenue comes from averaging the gains and losses out across a large portion of the population.

The Democratic mindset seems to be, "if tax revenue is up because the rich had a good year, increase social spending. Keep doing that until the rich have a bad year and tax revenues drop. Then say we have to raise tax rates to meet our obligations. As soon as the rich have another good year and tax revenue increases, return to step 1."
 
2011-07-02 11:58:11 AM  
Flat tax. That is all.
 
Displayed 50 of 209 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report