SP warn of downgrade if no deficit reduction

I think it's pretty clear youright wing reactionaries (crypto-fascists!) don't understand economics. Two things we on the left know for sure-

1. Tax revenue is a function only of tax rates. People do not adapt behavior in response to them. Revenue rises follow rate rises in the same proportion, just like temperature follows carbon content. Bank it.
2. Keynesian theory is a proven fact. The evidence for that statement is that 7 tears after FDR tried it, the Depression ended. Also, it just saved 28 million jobs last year, and maybe created a few thousand too.

Try to pay attention, and maybe you'll learn something from your betters.
 
If you look at the components of the deficit/debt and how we got here, the only realistic way to address it is to cut entitlements, cut defense, and raise taxes. This should be simple for adults.
 
to hell with the 2008 budget ... we should be at pre-21st century spending levels. The GOP and Clinton did a pretty decent job of cutting spending and balancing the budget.
 
What's up with the repeated personal attacks? My reply was directed at Uniformed's post immediately above mine (ie I was not addressing you).

Uninformed appears to think the debt and deficits are strictly a spending issue. This is not accurate particularly if you look at how we got here. Our entitlement spending and military spending definitely need to be addressed and are two huge components of the problem. We also, however, are taxing at one of if not the lowest level since WW II. You cannot cut entitlements and military spending enough to bridge the gap. It also is odd that the impact of the recession on revenue is ignored or overlooked.

There is a three pronged solution to this mess, but one side is hell bent on ignoring one of the prongs.
 
many people's proposals, when it comes to taxes, is to tax businesses and wealthy individuals. I have a few problems with that

What is the line where you're considered wealthy (as individual income) - I certainly don't think it's the 250k a year of family income. That's not wealthy ... that's just called being successful. A married couple that are both doctors can make that easy, or project managers, or whatever.

What about the issue that 40%ish of the American populations also pays no taxes, and maybe even get a net return in money. I have a problem with that as well. Everyone should pay at least a little bit in taxes.

Simplify the tax code (so everyone contributes) and fix/limit some of the stupid loopholes. I hate the idea of raising taxes, but if it means we make some big cuts to entitlement spending, then that compromise is worth it. Entitlement spending is out of control.
 
The third personal attack in a row. I guess the rules only apply to some people ...

My reply was neither snarky nor snotty, but you obviously want to be hurt so you can throw a tantrum and personally insult me. Cool.

You are kicking and screaming about deficits and debt, but did not care one way or the other about an extension of tax cuts. You really don't think there is a bit of a disconnect since the three issues (revenue, spending, and debt) are all interrelated?
 
Raising taxes does not address the problem. However, as a negotiating tool (and allowing Dems to save face and claim a victory), I would allow a small increase in tax rates.

Meanwhile, for growth and economic prosperity, I would do the following: I personally see it as a problem that nearly 50% of citizens pay no federal income tax. Thus, I would place a small tax on the 46% that are untaxed. Further, I would create a new tax rate for those making over $1.5 million per year, lower taxes slightly on those making between $80K and $1.5 million, eliminate some of the write-offs that are now possible, decrease corporate taxes, provide tax incentives for companies to hire, and provide a tax holiday for companies to reinvest overseas profits in the US.

Hopefully, that addresses your concerns paso.
 
/

this.

and I'd make it a requirement that we find 5-6 trillion in cuts ... not even entitlements would be safe.

spending is the bigger problem. taxes are only a tiny chunk of the issue here.
 
To be very clear, Obama has raised spending dramaically with his so called stimulus bill, as well as future spending via Obamacare.

And to be clear again, Obama has most definitely raised taxes by reducing charitable deductions and mortgage deductions for high earners. Amazing what gets forgotten.
mad.gif
 
How do we get there without raising taxes?

Here is the spending breakdown for 2010:

Medicaid and Medicare - $793 billion - 23%
Social Security - $701 billion - 20%
Defense - $689 billion - 20%
Interest - $197 billion - 6%
Other Mandatory - $416 billion - 12%
Discretionary - $660 billion - 19%

This totals $3.46 trillion in spending with revenue of $2.16 trillion for a deficit of $1.29 trillion (I did some rounding so the numbers might not exactly match). Revenue in 2007 was $2.57 trillion or about $400 billion more than in 2010.

How do you cut $1.29 trillion in spending? How do you do this and stay in office? Do you eliminate social security, medicare, and medicaid completely? Or do you eliminate the Department of Defense? (These are both rhetorical and ridiculous questions because this cannot be done).

It is insane to think that this will not take time to correct and that tax increases are not a part of the solution. The gap is simply too large.
 
As far as "revenue increases" are concerned, we need to start with negative taxes. There should not be an income tax credit for someone that paid no taxes. That is ridiculous. Everyone needs to participate even if their participation is minimal.
 
There are 138,893,908 taxpayers in the US and poverty income is $22,000. So .46*138893908*22,000* (income tax rate set arbitrarily at 6%) generates 84 billion in taxes.

The median household income is $50,000 and considering there are 138,893,908 households, the maximum annual revenue that can be collected from US citizens is 6,944,695,400,000 (6 trillion at 100% taxattion rate). A flat tax rate of 33% would generate $2.3 trillion. Our annual spending is $3.46 trillion. 15% of our government's tax collections come from corporations.
 
Uniformed, your math is a very good illustration but one point that is missing are the tax credits where someone gets a refund from nowhere. This year I was helping my son do his return on Turbo Tax. He had a summer job and he had a whopping $25 withheld. Not sure why. Anyway, we worked on his return and TurboTax somehow computed a $9000 refund for him. Keep in mind that this was far higher than his actual income. Then when we keyed in that "someone could claim him as a dependant", most of that refund went away. Just a little illustration to show you that our tax code is screwed up. So, if "Revenue Increases" might include eliminating that nonsense, I would possibly support Revenue Increases. Sadly, Barry has never mentioned eliminating this nifty income redistribution system.
pukey.gif
 
Oilfield, the other thing that I did not mention is that productivity declines as the tax rate increases so an increase in tax rate does not necessarily mean an increase in tax collections. Basically, I just was putting together the basic numbers so people like paso could see the spending problem.
 
Larry, I wouldn't mind you teaching my kiddos my man. Good luck to you.

My wife was a teacher and I know how hard you guys work. I helped her many nights grading papers. She taught in Plano and Highland Park and had demanding parents her whole career. The kind of parents you want the kids you teach to have - but they can keep a very busy teacher even busier.

I am glad there exist teachers like you who get it. God bless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top