And what about that 44 percent cut in spending? That would require the federal government to cut spending all the way back to what it spent in 2003 — a year not notable for mass starvation and economic collapse. In fact, the revenue we will collect in August would more than cover Social Security payments, Medicare and military salaries, in addition to interest payments on the debt.

[LEFT]
This admin gets caught lying more and more everyday.
[/LEFT]

coyotes22;826988 wrote:What waiting game are the R's playing? They are clear on what needs to be done. Cut spending, make a budget. WITHOUT raising any taxes!

We are going to have to raise some taxes. To think otherwise is being purposefully blind.

And the ones they want to "raise" are more loopholes than raising taxes anyway.

Also, the Dems have agreed to pretty large cuts.

I Wear Pants;827073 wrote:We are going to have to raise some taxes. To think otherwise is being purposefully blind.

No we don't. We need to create more taxpayers. There's your "revenue."

fish82;827082 wrote:No we don't. We need to create more taxpayers. There's your "revenue."

But then who will we have to depend on government handouts?

I Wear Pants;827073 wrote:We are going to have to raise some taxes. To think otherwise is being purposefully blind.

And the ones they want to "raise" are more loopholes than raising taxes anyway.

Also, the Dems have agreed to pretty large cuts.

Technically, most of what they've agreed to is to moderate increases over 10 years. That's not rally cutting, which is the issue myself and others have issue with. We've piled on mountains of new spending - Obama has done his share but certainly not solely his burden. Reducing the expected outlays there isn't much of a cut, what they are really saying is they will curtail growth in spending and hope GDP/ receipts ( and really GDP since receipts are a fairly consistent percentage of that) grow faster to reduce th deficit.

People want to see REAL cuts before opening their wallets further. Conceding higher taxes is really letting them off the hook...and when higher taxes don't get it done because they aren't really cutting, what then? MORE taxes?!?

That linked article is pretty interesting. Expenditures are 44% above expected receipts, which is roughly the increase over the 2003 budget? Again we have a spending problem - expenditures have grossly outpaced inflation and GDP growth...cut the fat AND THEN come back to me about higher taxes to reduce the debt.

If that article is correct, then I support the Repubs 100% to do nothing and force Washington to actually spend only what it takes in. Balance the budget, then we can talk about higher taxes.

Honestly, if your child spends irresponsibly and can't manage their finances, do you teach them fiscal responsibility by giving them MORE money? Sounds pretty fucking stupid to me.

gut;827099 wrote:Technically, most of what they've agreed to is to moderate increases over 10 years. That's not rally cutting, which is the issue myself and others have issue with. We've piled on mountains of new spending - Obama has done his share but certainly not solely his burden. Reducing the expected outlays there isn't much of a cut, what they are really saying is they will curtail growth in spending and hope GDP/ receipts ( and really GDP since receipts are a fairly consistent percentage of that) grow faster to reduce th deficit.

People want to see REAL cuts before opening their wallets further. Conceding higher taxes is really letting them off the hook...and when higher taxes don't get it done because they aren't really cutting, what then? MORE taxes?!?

That linked article is pretty interesting. Expenditures are 44% above expected receipts, which is roughly the increase over the 2003 budget? Again we have a spending problem - expenditures have grossly outpaced inflation and GDP growth...cut the fat AND THEN come back to me about higher taxes to reduce the debt.

If that article is correct, then I support the Repubs 100% to do nothing and force Washington to actually spend only what it takes in. Balance the budget, then we can talk about higher taxes.

Honestly, if your child spends irresponsibly and can't manage their finances, do you teach them fiscal responsibility by giving them MORE money? Sounds pretty fucking stupid to me.

+1

Higher taxes...gee, I wonder what businesses haven't seen this coming with an out of control deficit. Raise your hand if you think that has anything to do with abysmal job growth.

gut;827099 wrote:Technically, most of what they've agreed to is to moderate increases over 10 years. That's not rally cutting, which is the issue myself and others have issue with. We've piled on mountains of new spending - Obama has done his share but certainly not solely his burden. Reducing the expected outlays there isn't much of a cut, what they are really saying is they will curtail growth in spending and hope GDP/ receipts ( and really GDP since receipts are a fairly consistent percentage of that) grow faster to reduce th deficit.

People want to see REAL cuts before opening their wallets further. Conceding higher taxes is really letting them off the hook...and when higher taxes don't get it done because they aren't really cutting, what then? MORE taxes?!?

That linked article is pretty interesting. Expenditures are 44% above expected receipts, which is roughly the increase over the 2003 budget? Again we have a spending problem - expenditures have grossly outpaced inflation and GDP growth...cut the fat AND THEN come back to me about higher taxes to reduce the debt.

If that article is correct, then I support the Repubs 100% to do nothing and force Washington to actually spend only what it takes in. Balance the budget, then we can talk about higher taxes.

Honestly, if your child spends irresponsibly and can't manage their finances, do you teach them fiscal responsibility by giving them MORE money? Sounds pretty fucking stupid to me.

Well for one I woulnd't treat my child like a Federal budget.

Secondly, yes many more things need to be cut. And we should start with easy ones. (Drug war anyone?)

But forcing a 44% cut in one month because the Republicans don't want to raise the debt ceiling will not help anyone. It won't be the magical "oh look, now we have a balanced budget because we have to and rainbows are everywhere" that some are pretending.

gut;827102 wrote:Higher taxes...gee, I wonder what businesses haven't seen this coming with an out of control deficit. Raise your hand if you think that has anything to do with abysmal job growth.

So we can never again raise taxes or jobs will suffer? We're already at one of the lower overall rates we've had and I still haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that measures like the Bush cuts helped in any way. That's not to say that higher rates are better or anything. But what good has lowering the rates done us recently? It hasn't worked.

I Wear Pants;827103 wrote:Well for one I woulnd't treat my child like a Federal budget.

Secondly, yes many more things need to be cut. And we should start with easy ones. (Drug war anyone?)

But forcing a 44% cut in one month because the Republicans don't want to raise the debt ceiling will not help anyone. It won't be the magical "oh look, now we have a balanced budget because we have to and rainbows are everywhere" that some are pretending.


So we can never again raise taxes or jobs will suffer? We're already at one of the lower overall rates we've had and I still haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that measures like the Bush cuts helped in any way. That's not to say that higher rates are better or anything. But what good has lowering the rates done us recently? It hasn't worked.

Its called uncertainty. Business is afraid to hire, because of the policies Obama has established. ObamaCare has not helped either. We have lost 2.5 million jobs since January of 2009. How is that anyones fault, other than Obama's? With the threat of higher tax rates, and ObamaCare, small business has stagered.

I Wear Pants;827103 wrote:...
So we can never again raise taxes or jobs will suffer? We're already at one of the lower overall rates we've had and I still haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that measures like the Bush cuts helped in any way. That's not to say that higher rates are better or anything. But what good has lowering the rates done us recently? It hasn't worked.

How about simply providing a budget proposal that balances over a certain period of time and work from there? I would be O.K. with a tax raise...eventually. Until there's some belief that true cuts are in place as opposed to reduced increases being called cuts I will pull my future vote from anyone who agrees to raise taxes.

Con_Alma;827119 wrote:How about simply providing a budget proposal that balances over a certain period of time and work from there? I would be O.K. with a tax raise...eventually. Until there's some belief that true cuts are in place as opposed to reduced increases being called cuts I will pull my future vote from anyone who agrees to raise taxes.

Like I've said before on here. I'm fine with tying raises to cuts/paying debt (by law). I just think there are some places, like some of these loopholes that they're talking about where we could benefit from them being closed.

coyotes22;827114 wrote:Its called uncertainty. Business is afraid to hire, because of the policies Obama has established. ObamaCare has not helped either. We have lost 2.5 million jobs since January of 2009. How is that anyones fault, other than Obama's? With the threat of higher tax rates, and ObamaCare, small business has stagered.

The Bush tax cuts have been around since what, 2001? Where's the damned uncertainty?

Businesses aren't afraid to hire. They don't need to hire. They got rid of people when they were posting losses and now that they're making record profits they won't hire unless they absolutely need to due to an increase in demand. Why add more to your payroll if you can get away with less?

I Wear Pants;827154 wrote:Like I've said before on here. I'm fine with tying raises to cuts/paying debt (by law). I just think there are some places, like some of these loopholes that they're talking about where we could benefit from them being closed.

You might be fine with it but it's not happening.

Loophole closures are tax increases. Make it part of a plan to balance the budget. Until then draw a line in the sand ans say no more debt level increases.

I Wear Pants;827155 wrote:...They got rid of people when they were posting losses and now that they're making record profits they won't hire unless they absolutely need to due to an increase in demand. Why add more to your payroll if you can get away with less?

Why indeed. That not a reason to raise their taxes.

Ok, so we can't touch the tax code then in any other way than cutting taxes? Seems pretty stubborn.

Con_Alma;827163 wrote:Why indeed. That not a reason to raise their taxes.

I would just like a loophole less code. If we say the rate for businesses should be 40% (fake numbers, overly simplistic example before you go nuts) I think that's the rate it should be. If we have a bunch of loopholes and other things that make almost all businesses end up paying 25% and that's the level we're actually okay with then I'd like the rate to just be set at 25%. Having a top level that no one pays is stupid.

That's my point.

I Wear Pants;827165 wrote:Ok, so we can't touch the tax code then in any other way than cutting taxes? Seems pretty stubborn.

That's not what I said at all. I do think, however, a defining moment will be required to start going in the right direction. If you would like to title it "stubborn" so be it.

Raising taxes doesn't solve the problem. Spending in accordance with revenue levels while being done at a rate that doesn't restrict but rather enhances the economy does.

I Wear Pants;827168 wrote:I would just like a loophole less code. ....

Fine. Make it part of a plan which balances the budget. I haven't seen that.

I Wear Pants;827168 wrote:... Having a top level that no one pays is stupid.

...

It reminds me of having a individual tax level at the bottom that permits paying $0.00.

I think there's ownership in paying something...even $1.00.

Con_Alma;827169 wrote:That's not what I said at all. I do think, however, a defining moment will be required to start going in the right direction. If you would like to title it "stubborn" so be it.

Raising taxes doesn't solve the problem. Spending in accordance with revenue levels while being done at a rate that doesn't restrict but rather enhances the economy does.

When have I ever said raising taxes solves the problem? I haven't. I just think that if we both intelligently raise rates/close loopholes/whatever you want to call it while cutting spending that we don't need (end drug war, reduce military spending, do something that I don't exactly know to SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc, etc) and we'll be out of this mess quickly. Obviously the cuts are the more important part.

I Wear Pants;827176 wrote:When have I ever said raising taxes solves the problem? ...

I have no idea. Why would you ask?

I Wear Pants;827176 wrote:... I just think that if we both intelligently raise rates/close loopholes/whatever you want to call it while cutting spending that we don't need (end drug war, reduce military spending, do something that I don't exactly know to SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc, etc) and we'll be out of this mess quickly. Obviously the cuts are the more important part.

I agree and have said basically the same thing. The problem is no one is proposing that with the exception of the Paul Rand budget. No one else has brought a true balanced budget proposal to the table.

1: Incorrectly read the inflection of part of what you said is why I'd ask. Happens with text sometimes.

2. Perhaps instead of saying "we've got to propose a balanced budget" we should focus on more immediately lessening our deficit rather than reducing it. It's more attainable and any balanced budget proposal would take a few years to get to the balanced stage anyway. A semantics thing as the goals would still be the same but it might be easier to actually get done if we do it more short term and less long term. Hopefully that comes across as how I wanted it to.

I Wear Pants;827197 wrote:...

2. Perhaps instead of saying "we've got to propose a balanced budget" we should focus on more immediately lessening our deficit rather than reducing it. It's more attainable and any balanced budget proposal would take a few years to get to the balanced stage anyway. A semantics thing as the goals would still be the same but it might be easier to actually get done if we do it more short term and less long term. Hopefully that comes across as how I wanted it to.

No thanks. I've been sucked into that game for too long now. I went along with these things in the past only to be disappointed. It's time for a defining moment in history.

Show me a budget you approve of then.

I Wear Pants;827210 wrote:Show me a budget you approve of then.

I've only seen one. That's the point. The only plan that has been presented is what I would have to provide as my answer. I'll take that one I guess. it's better than dancing around so called cuts while debating an increase in allowable debt.