discussion on debt ceiling

[salemfootball 10]

The debt ceiling is only on debt already incurred , Iraq and others wars etc . Thus if we do not raise it in the short term and get our house in order in the long term , probably cut benefits for us all, work later , raise taxes etc . , we will eventually pay more in interest as a country plus personal debt such as credit card interest will go up and mortgage interest rates will go up also . The bottom line as far as the future is that either the rich pay more or you or I will . We have too many benefits and no way to pay for them .What will each one of you give up for the country ? You cannot cut taxes on the rich and raise spending it does not add up .If you think that we need a huge military then you will have to pay for it . And whether you like it or not we cannot continue on the path of not paying for healthcare . you and I are relatively healthy so we should not have to pay for sorry people who get sick or elderly people .

[GMan 3,569]

The bottom line as far as the future is that either the rich pay more or you or I will .

 

No, the bottom line is the Government needs to quit wasting the tax dollars that you and I pay...

[salemfootball 10]

Are u talking healthcare or the military because that is where the only substantial cuts can be ? Or are U just making broad statements with no clue?

[Deleted Account 5,203]

No, the bottom line is the Government needs to quit wasting the tax dollars that you and I pay...

 

No, the bottom line is that government must both tax AND cut. Doing just one is just treating the symptoms, not the illness.

[vthokies4life 10]

No, the bottom line is that government must both tax AND cut. Doing just one is just treating the symptoms, not the illness.

This.

[Hacker 82]

No, the bottom line is that government must both tax AND cut. Doing just one is just treating the symptoms, not the illness.

 

I like your thinking here. It is real simple, when a business starts seeing a downturn or rising costs they look to trim the fat and raise prices. In the case of our bloated economy, we need to look at both revenues and expenditures.

 

Congressfolks need to remember that they are the ones who approved all the programs and there should be no sacred cows. If raising the age for Medicare to 70 needs to happen because we live longer then so be it. Are their tons of programs that could be cut, say farm subsidies, federal aid to research, a weapons system that is nice to have but not essential, it should be on the table to cut. But so should tax breaks for billionaires, oil companies etc. Taking away a break is not a tax increase.

 

The bottom line is that the Tax Ceiling is just the front for larger issues. To not raise it means we are telling the folks we owe money to that we don't give a s*(t about paying what we owe. We are starting to look like a dysfunctional Third World country, and not the world leader.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

Congressfolks need to remember that they are the ones who approved all the programs and there should be no sacred cows. If raising the age for Medicare to 70 needs to happen because we live longer then so be it. Are their tons of programs that could be cut, say farm subsidies, federal aid to research, a weapons system that is nice to have but not essential, it should be on the table to cut. But so should tax breaks for billionaires, oil companies etc. Taking away a break is not a tax increase.

 

Totally agree.

[bucfan64 309]

Taking away a tax break IS a tax increase.

 

You are basing your argument on the supposition that the govt. is entitled to the money. It is not. The company, firm, individual etc. is entitled to their money, their property, their earnings. If a tax break comes along, it enables them to keep their money or earnings. If a tax break is rescinded, it results in an increase in taxes withheld from the earnings, hence an increase in taxes.

 

A tax break enables a person to keep THEIR MONEY, the money did not belong to the govt. and then the govt. gave it back due to a tax break. Instead, a tax break permits the tax payer to keep his or her money. Anything that results in paying more money, is akin to a TAX INCREASE.

 

I do personally believe that loopholes and so called tax breaks need to be either eliminated or reformed in some manner. In order to pay for the huge debt that our govt. has acquired we do need to increase revenues and we also need to drastically cut spending. The current administration, has no intention whatsoever of reducing spending. If the debt ceiling is raised, it will be treated as an opportunity to increase spending and it will not resolve the problem.

 

Presently, a rise in the debt ceiling accompanied with the elimination of tax loopholes and certain tax breaks AKA TAX REFORM, could possibly help. The question is how to raise revenues, the quick fix is to raise taxes, many are opposed to this, because an increase in marginal taxes will automatically reduce revenues. Think of it this way, I always base my spending on the NET INCOME that I bring home, not the gross income, if taxes are increased, my net income will be smaller which will result in less spending, less spending means less revenue and less job growth, which will in turn hurt the revenue drawing potential of the nation. I honestly believe that TAX REFORM, accompanied with a tax decrease might work, however a tax decrease without tax reform will not help this situation.

 

 

Just some random thoughts........

Edited July 18, 2011 by bucfan64

[Guest The Variable]

Are u talking healthcare or the military because that is where the only substantial cuts can be ? Or are U just making broad statements with no clue?

 

No clue? Like your handle on proper grammar? Just a piece of advice, do not hold up your alma mater as a signal of pride when you end up making it look like a educational failure that churns out folks who cannot speak correctly.

 

Lets get to this post of yours.

 

Thus if we do not raise it in the short term and get our house in order in the long term , probably cut benefits for us all, work later , raise taxes etc . , we will eventually pay more in interest as a country plus personal debt such as credit card interest will go up and mortgage interest rates will go up also.

Wrong. Balancing our budget to operate in the black is the solution. Getting people back to work (promote hiring permanent jobs) so that they can pay taxes again is the solution. The only reason that we need a debt ceiling at all is because Congress cannot balance the budget. They do that as a smoke and mirrors trick to fulfill campaign promises that have no real practical chance of happening. To circumvent that, they make deals to have these entitlements, grants, funds snuck into bills that have nothing to do with it. This is called pork. You do not have to "cut benefits for us all" or "work later". We CAN cut Unemployment since it is ridiculous to pay someone to not work for 2 years. We can cut Obamacare since it was not erroneous and unconstitutional to begin with. Interest rates are historically low for exactly the reason you say that they are going to go up.

 

The bottom line as far as the future is that either the rich pay more or you or I will .

Newsflash: They already do pay more.

 

We have too many benefits and no way to pay for them. What will each one of you give up for the country?

I gave up 9 years of my life for my country 1 of which was spent in combat and countless months spent keeping illegals out of this country. I will not give up anything more for a country of ingrates and malcontents who expect everyone else to pay for them. We do have too many benefits, to the degree that the level of personal responsibility has diminished to unintelligible levels. We have people move into our country illegal and we give them free stuff. We send our money overseas to the UN so that they can waste it on foreign dictators. We pay contractors overseas to work that their military counterparts can do for 1/5th of the cost. We let people buy houses that they know they cant afford (freddie and fannie). You tell me what I gave that time of my life up for? I do not feel very free. I feel burdened by the demands of social parasites who expect the successful to give them whatever they want.

 

You cannot cut taxes on the rich and raise spending it does not add up.

Right, cut capital gains and cut spending.

 

If you think that we need a huge military then you will have to pay for it.

Aside from the fact that we do NEED a large military to protect our rights and interests, yes you do have to pay for it.

 

And whether you like it or not we cannot continue on the path of not paying for healthcare.

I do pay for healthcare. Now I have to pay more because of Obamacare, so much for the "affordable healthcare act" misnomer.

[Guest The Variable]

No, the bottom line is that government must both tax AND cut. Doing just one is just treating the symptoms, not the illness.

 

Doing just both is still treating symptoms. An unbalanced budget is the illness. You can solve that with either or, you do not need to do both. The question is: Which would you rather live with?

 

This is just like our problems with the SEC and the new federal regulation agency. We have a regulation problem because we have an enforcement problem. GE not paying taxes? Close the loophole. Dont raise the taxes so that everyone else NOT taking advantage of the loopholes get hosed. Look at http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/jul/18/tax-code-deductions-body-oils-parties-stray-cats/

 

Not only that but I dont know many people making less than 750k (not to mention 250k) who are corporate jet owners and oil cartel members. I am sorry, Rubio makes a lot more sense than Obama.

 

The owners of my company are small business owners, now tell me this. If their taxes go up, which do you think they will do first pull their kids out of private school, or put a freeze on hiring. I dont blame them because if it were me, my kids would come first too.

Edited July 18, 2011 by The Variable

[bucfan64 309]

The Progressives aka Socialist in this country have done a wonderful job demonizing the wealthy. Most folks are perfectly fine with an increased tax on the "rich," without ever taking into consideration that the very people who determine who is rich can also change those numbers eventually to include everyone.

 

I find it scary that so many people in this country have a strong feeling of hate towards the job creators in this nation. It is going to take some major efforts to reverse this mentality.

 

The simple fact is GOVT. consumes, it does not produce. (sorry Mr. President)

 

The Free Market is what made this country great and it along with limited govt. is what will restore it to prosperity, until the people of this country accept this TRUTH, the people in Washington will never change.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

Doing just both is still treating symptoms. An unbalanced budget is the illness. You can solve that with either or, you do not need to do both. The question is: Which would you rather live with?

 

This is just like our problems with the SEC and the new federal regulation agency. We have a regulation problem because we have an enforcement problem. GE not paying taxes? Close the loophole. Dont raise the taxes so that everyone else NOT taking advantage of the loopholes get hosed. Look at http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/jul/18/tax-code-deductions-body-oils-parties-stray-cats/

 

Not only that but I dont know many people making less than 750k (not to mention 250k) who are corporate jet owners and oil cartel members. I am sorry, Rubio makes a lot more sense than Obama.

 

The owners of my company are small business owners, now tell me this. If their taxes go up, which do you think they will do first pull their kids out of private school, or put a freeze on hiring. I dont blame them because if it were me, my kids would come first too.

 

I think you're making my point for me. How do you get a balanced budget? By trimming spending and increasing income. What am I proposing? Trimming spending and increasing income. If you do just one, you're only doing half the work. Sooner or later, either not cutting (Clinton) or not increasing taxes (Bush) is going to catch up with you.

 

I'm not saying tax and cut the SAME agency, which is what you're assuming I am. You may need to close tax loopholes in one area, while increasing taxes toward another group. You have to play it by ear. Some agencies are irresponsibly run in different ways.

 

Call me a fiscal liberal, but I don't buy trickle down. What small-business owners will do, is predictably pass the costs to the consumers through higher prices. Then will come the hiring freezes. You think that the executives' salaries are changing? No sir, that's the LAST thing to chance. Executives aren't cutting their own throat.

[Hacker 82]

The Chimera that I hear so often is that the conservatives are for limited government and getting it off the peoples backs. Yet they fail to acknowledge that it hasn't mattered who has been the President or which party controls Congress, spending had gone up.

 

Now we need to ask ourselves why this is? Is it because we the people are demanding new programs? (The answer on the state and local level would be yes.) Is it because of some pent up need? (No the major pent up public need is infrastructure to replace aging utility lines, roads and bridges, and we aren't doing jack about those.) Is it because special interest groups, and defense contractors have their hands in our pockets for all kinds of things. (Now you are getting close.)

 

I would suggest that you go back and look at what Dwight Eisenhower said about the Military Industrial Complex.

[Lance 228]

No, the bottom line is the Government needs to quit wasting the tax dollars that you and I pay...

 

truth.

 

...and start taxing China more on imports and end the damn north american free trade...it does US no good...Mexico and Canada LOVE it...screw them. We've got China by the balls, if we don't feed them they will be in a world of hurt....it's time to start playing hard ball with some of these places, stop worrying about the middle east so much, let that whole place burn if thats what they want as long as they leave us alone who cares...when it comes down to it we have enough oil here to be as rich as Saudi Arabia ever was if we just tap it...and for god sakes, quit trying to run the world, and quit paying the bills for everyone who WE OWE MONEY TO...we forgive the debt they owe us, yet have to pay them? I'm sick of it...and this two party system in Washington needs to go...it doesn't work...United States, Divided by politics....Washington has sold out to large companies long ago...nothing gets done for the American people anymore...makes me sick.

[Guest The Variable]

I think you're making my point for me. How do you get a balanced budget? By trimming spending and increasing income. What am I proposing? Trimming spending and increasing income. If you do just one, you're only doing half the work. Sooner or later, either not cutting (Clinton) or not increasing taxes (Bush) is going to catch up with you.

You are suggesting increasing taxes, I want more people paying taxes. The difference is between augmenting your source vs getting more sources of income. Right now we have unemployment over 9%. Those folks are not only not paying taxes, but collecting unemployment and draining our resources. We have people who are out of work and not part of that percentage who are not paying taxes, and we have the underemployed who are paying less taxes than they would if they were appropriately employed. Fix that and you do not need to increase the tax burden on others.

 

Clinton did cut, as we saw with what he did to our military. Bush did not cut. Bush increased spending. The whole point of NOT raising taxes is cutting spending. We dont need all this garbage we are paying for, and the people who benefit the most from the stuff (if anyone is) are people who do not pay into the system. Its like the Allied Bank commercials with the guy telling the boy he does not get ice cream or telling the girl that she cant have a real pony. Even a kid can see what is so wrong with this scenario.

Now we have a problem with people thinking they are poor when they arent:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/272081/modern-poverty-includes-ac-and-xbox-ken-mcintyre

 

So no, the comparrison with Bush doesnt work because he increased bureacracy and spending which is counter to the debate from Tea Party folks like myself.

 

I'm not saying tax and cut the SAME agency, which is what you're assuming I am. You may need to close tax loopholes in one area, while increasing taxes toward another group. You have to play it by ear. Some agencies are irresponsibly run in different ways.

But they are ALL irresponsibly run. Before increasing taxes on people, lets see how far we can get by closing loopholes. I bet one that happens, and washington gets spending under control (fat chance) tax increases will be wholly unnecessary. Lets see how far we get when we start enforcing the laws and regulations we have on the books. Most of the "problems" Obamacare wanted to solve were a result of not enforcing current laws and guidelines or regulations. Youre a lawyer, you know all about laws stacked onto other laws.

 

Call me a fiscal liberal, but I don't buy trickle down. What small-business owners will do, is predictably pass the costs to the consumers through higher prices. Then will come the hiring freezes. You think that the executives' salaries are changing? No sir, that's the LAST thing to chance. Executives aren't cutting their own throat.

I dont care about trickle down. Free enterprise is free enterprise and it is one of the foundations of our nation. They can do whatever they want as long as a monopoly or trust or fraud isnt involved. Its their right as business owners to do that and if we have a problem with that, dont buy their product or start a business and do the opposite. We all have that freedom.

 

Here is an example of this frustration...and we dont need tax dodgers like Geithner or Immelt to tell us otherwise:

http://www.businessinsider.com/wynn-ceo-steve-wynn-conference-call-transcript-obama-2011-7 and this guy is a democrat who supports harry reid.

Edited July 19, 2011 by The Variable

[Guest The Variable]

The Chimera that I hear so often is that the conservatives are for limited government and getting it off the peoples backs. Yet they fail to acknowledge that it hasn't mattered who has been the President or which party controls Congress, spending had gone up.

Actually, on Face the Nation, Rep. Rubio acknowledged that Bush was partly responsible for all of this. The problem is, you rarely see conservatism at work in the government. Why? For reasons you state below. We dont have conservatives in congress, we have politicians in congress. Thats why a small government is a tidy government.

 

Now we need to ask ourselves why this is? Is it because we the people are demanding new programs? (The answer on the state and local level would be yes.) Is it because of some pent up need? (No the major pent up public need is infrastructure to replace aging utility lines, roads and bridges, and we aren't doing jack about those.) Is it because special interest groups, and defense contractors have their hands in our pockets for all kinds of things. (Now you are getting close.)

Thats BS. Richmond has all of those things going on right now. So does NoVa and HR. The money is going to everyone BUT small business and taxpayers.

 

I would suggest that you go back and look at what Dwight Eisenhower said about the Military Industrial Complex.

Go after the contractors first. We dont need Dynacorp or KBR employees doing work overseas for 80-350k a year to do something some E-1 private could do for 30k a year. We do need weapons systems and we do need cyber warfare projects and unmanned drone upgrades. That stuff is important.

[Guest The Variable]

truth.

 

...and start taxing China more on imports and end the damn north american free trade...it does US no good...Mexico and Canada LOVE it...screw them. We've got China by the balls, if we don't feed them they will be in a world of hurt....it's time to start playing hard ball with some of these places, stop worrying about the middle east so much, let that whole place burn if thats what they want as long as they leave us alone who cares...when it comes down to it we have enough oil here to be as rich as Saudi Arabia ever was if we just tap it...and for god sakes, quit trying to run the world, and quit paying the bills for everyone who WE OWE MONEY TO...we forgive the debt they owe us, yet have to pay them? I'm sick of it...and this two party system in Washington needs to go...it doesn't work...United States, Divided by politics....Washington has sold out to large companies long ago...nothing gets done for the American people anymore...makes me sick.

 

You know who said this the first time I heard it? Ross Perot. I was in 2nd grade and it made sense then, and it makes sense now. NAFTA is a sham.

 

This also means that we are going to have to cut a lot of the power that the SEIU and UAW or IBEW or any other local 666 union out there that is overstepping the spirit of the union. Right-to-Work states rock. Unions have driven up the cost of manufacturing/service/harvesting in this nation to the point where it is not profitable nor an attractive source of export or investment (partly thanks to overregulation by redundant bureacracies). By forcing people into Unions you take away the working rights of the individual, which defeats the initial purpose of a union. If you look at every successful company in this nation, see if any of them have a union presence. It helped kill the american auto industry, it made an already poor government service industry worse and it has diminished our presence as a worldwide distributor.

Edited July 19, 2011 by The Variable

[Deleted Account 5,203]

You are suggesting increasing taxes, I want more people paying taxes. The difference is between augmenting your source vs getting more sources of income. Right now we have unemployment over 9%. Those folks are not only not paying taxes, but collecting unemployment and draining our resources. We have people who are out of work and not part of that percentage who are not paying taxes, and we have the underemployed who are paying less taxes than they would if they were appropriately employed. Fix that and you do not need to increase the tax burden on others.

 

Clinton did cut, as we saw with what he did to our military. Bush did not cut. Bush increased spending. The whole point of NOT raising taxes is cutting spending. We dont need all this garbage we are paying for, and the people who benefit the most from the stuff (if anyone is) are people who do not pay into the system. Its like the Allied Bank commercials with the guy telling the boy he does not get ice cream or telling the girl that she cant have a real pony. Even a kid can see what is so wrong with this scenario.

Now we have a problem with people thinking they are poor when they arent:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...x-ken-mcintyre

 

So no, the comparrison with Bush doesnt work because he increased bureacracy and spending which is counter to the debate from Tea Party folks like myself.

 

I don't know what else to say, is that the expenditures substantially grew while Clinton was in office. Sure, he cut SOME things, but on a whole, the United States was spending more. Granted, Clinton did have a surplus, so he could do such things. However, instead of funnelling that surplus away for a market downturn, he spent it right back. Clinton's system was already cracking in 2000, before he left office. He refused to significantly cut back his programs, leaving Bush more or less a scapegoat when the recession of 2001 came upon him.

 

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I firmly believe that in order to do an adequate job, one must increase income (tax) while decreasing expenditures (cutting). History has shown that doing one does not work as a long-term solution (though history has shown that increasing taxes is more effective than cutting).

 

But they are ALL irresponsibly run. Before increasing taxes on people, lets see how far we can get by closing loopholes. I bet one that happens, and washington gets spending under control (fat chance) tax increases will be wholly unnecessary. Lets see how far we get when we start enforcing the laws and regulations we have on the books. Most of the "problems" Obamacare wanted to solve were a result of not enforcing current laws and guidelines or regulations. Youre a lawyer, you know all about laws stacked onto other laws.

 

Of course, they're all irresponsibly run. However, I propose looking at agencies on a case-by-case basis. Some, only cuts are needed. Some, taxes need to be increased and loopholes removed. Some need both. Each agency, each department, each business is unique. I can't be in favor of doing something categorically like that.

 

You're right, I know the perils of creating laws in duplicate. It just creates loopholes and nightmares for lawyers and courts. That, too, is why Obamacare disgusted me so.

 

I dont care about trickle down. Free enterprise is free enterprise and it is one of the foundations of our nation. They can do whatever they want as long as a monopoly or trust or fraud isnt involved. Its their right as business owners to do that and if we have a problem with that, dont buy their product or start a business and do the opposite. We all have that freedom.

 

Here is an example of this frustration...and we dont need tax dodgers like Geithner or Immelt to tell us otherwise:

http://www.businessinsider.com/wynn-...t-obama-2011-7 and this guy is a democrat who supports harry reid.

 

Preaching to the choir here. :)

[bucfan64 309]

The divider and Chief could easily cut spending, and cut taxes. However, if taxes are to be cut, and I think they should be, something must be done to increase revenue. In my opinion, limiting tax deductions, loopholes and other tax escapes would increase revenue and taxes would not have to be raised. In fact if the cuts are smaller than the total amount of deductions eliminated, govt. revenues would increase and the economy would pick up as a result in the tax cuts.

 

The problem with all of this is this one simple fact.

 

The President that has spent more money than any before him, (Obama) The President who is a disciple of J.M. Keynes (Obama) has no intention whatsoever of reducing govt. spending.

 

Therefore, it doesn't matter what type of agreement that is reached, spending will continue..........this president believes with everything in him that you can spend your way out of debt and he isn't going to change a lifetime of indoctrination for anyone.

 

By the way, the Republicans are as much to blame for this debacle as anyone......

[ghs73 157]

I think you're making my point for me. How do you get a balanced budget? By trimming spending and increasing income. What am I proposing? Trimming spending and increasing income. If you do just one, you're only doing half the work. Sooner or later, either not cutting (Clinton) or not increasing taxes (Bush) is going to catch up with you.

 

I'm not saying tax and cut the SAME agency, which is what you're assuming I am. You may need to close tax loopholes in one area, while increasing taxes toward another group. You have to play it by ear. Some agencies are irresponsibly run in different ways.

 

Call me a fiscal liberal, but I don't buy trickle down. What small-business owners will do, is predictably pass the costs to the consumers through higher prices. Then will come the hiring freezes. You think that the executives' salaries are changing? No sir, that's the LAST thing to chance. Executives aren't cutting their own throat.

 

what i find apalling is when someone has a job has 2 kids gets food stamps to the tune of 500 a month pays no federal taxes because of deductions then when tax time comes files his taxes and gets 2000 dollars back from the federal gov. this is a loophole that needs to be fixed. if someone works and pays no federal tax because of deductions then why should they get a refund. they paid nothing in to deserve a refund. now i will say this i know this to be a fact it happened for many years to someone that i knew very well. will not say who but it is a fact this happened. and if it happened here how many other times does this happen in this country. many pay no taxes and get refunds. close this loop hole first before even thinking of raising taxes. the small business is the people that hire. make it easier for business to hire and tax people fairly and the gov would have more money, especially if you close the loophole where people can pay no tax due to deductions on w2 forms

[Lance 228]

if you want to raise taxes on anything or anyone, raise it on goods coming in to this country first...it's time to stop letting china and india and every other hole in the wall steal american labor by producing stuff for pennies on the dollar as to what it can be made here for...the mass exodus of production jobs is what has killed our country and economy...you can not survive on a service based economy...it will never happen...you have to produce something...and slowly we are watching that all go away...if that is not fixed soon we are going to suffer big time.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

if you want to raise taxes on anything or anyone, raise it on goods coming in to this country first...it's time to stop letting china and india and every other hole in the wall steal american labor by producing stuff for pennies on the dollar as to what it can be made here for...the mass exodus of production jobs is what has killed our country and economy...you can not survive on a service based economy...it will never happen...you have to produce something...and slowly we are watching that all go away...if that is not fixed soon we are going to suffer big time.

 

I don't disagree. We need to get back to the days of rigid tariffs. It'd be the best thing that could possibly happen to this nation.

[Guest The Variable]

I don't know what else to say, is that the expenditures substantially grew while Clinton was in office. Sure, he cut SOME things, but on a whole, the United States was spending more. Granted, Clinton did have a surplus, so he could do such things. However, instead of funnelling that surplus away for a market downturn, he spent it right back. Clinton's system was already cracking in 2000, before he left office. He refused to significantly cut back his programs, leaving Bush more or less a scapegoat when the recession of 2001 came upon him.

You are right. I worded it poorly but I meant to say that Clinton did cut some things (albeit very dumb places to cut), and he balanced the budget with the help of a once promising GOP congress and we had at least some measure of welfare reform. I think it was the LAST time we had a balanced budget. He benefits from this huge dot com boom and he spent it all on dumb stuff instead of stowing it away like a smart person would. He subsequently ruined that boom during his lame duck period. Tim Kaine did the same crap with our road fund here in VA. We were supposed to have a large amount of capital to fix the roads the past couple of years. Guess where all that money went to instead: Waste. We are a country of politically savvy people (and some liberals too) who vote for morons and I do not get it.

 

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I firmly believe that in order to do an adequate job, one must increase income (tax) while decreasing expenditures (cutting). History has shown that doing one does not work as a long-term solution (though history has shown that increasing taxes is more effective than cutting).

I dont think we disagree all that much. Just you think revenue should come from existing sources and I think we should add new sources. I do not know where in history increasing taxes is more effective. We did that during FDRs new deal and it exasterbated the great depression and ultimately it took a worldwide conflict fought on more than half of the continents to bring us out of it (partly thanks to that military industrial complex hacker mentioned btw). Historically, you have nations in the EU who have shown that increasing taxes leads to disaster. I also do not know where in history we have shrank the size of our government. It has done nothing but grow since 1776 getting worse after 1865 and again in the 1920s and 30s and almost exponentially worse ever since. Can you point out to me what you meant?

 

Of course, they're all irresponsibly run. However, I propose looking at agencies on a case-by-case basis. Some, only cuts are needed. Some, taxes need to be increased and loopholes removed. Some need both. Each agency, each department, each business is unique. I can't be in favor of doing something categorically like that.

Its what is fair, and its stable (though the cuts may not be necessary in some areas). We give too many subsidies to the agriculture industry to produce things like ethanol instead of FOOD. Thats one of many more industries that benefits from this stuff. I dont mind making them pay taxes, especially while they are mostly employing illegals.

 

Cuts need to start in Washington with Congress and the White House.

[Guest The Variable]

if you want to raise taxes on anything or anyone, raise it on goods coming in to this country first...it's time to stop letting china and india and every other hole in the wall steal american labor by producing stuff for pennies on the dollar as to what it can be made here for...the mass exodus of production jobs is what has killed our country and economy...you can not survive on a service based economy...it will never happen...you have to produce something...and slowly we are watching that all go away...if that is not fixed soon we are going to suffer big time.

 

Coal and Food...we can still turn them out if we let those industries do it. Steel industry too. We have some manufacturing that can come back like the Auto Industry if we werent paying workers $75 an hour.

 

It also would not be as bad if we worked on fair tariffs. Its insane the difference in imports/exports cost when trading with China or Japan or any of the other asian markets. Thats why we cannot compete effectively. And you hit the nail on the head about NAFTA earlier.

[Lance 228]

Coal and Food...we can still turn them out if we let those industries do it. Steel industry too. We have some manufacturing that can come back like the Auto Industry if we werent paying workers $75 an hour.

 

It also would not be as bad if we worked on fair tariffs. Its insane the difference in imports/exports cost when trading with China or Japan or any of the other asian markets. Thats why we cannot compete effectively. And you hit the nail on the head about NAFTA earlier.

 

every time they raise the min wage, they lower the middle class quality of life...the goal in this country for a while has been to eliminate the middle class...they think by doing so it will eliminate the lower class as well....bring the lower class up to middle class levels and all is well....doesn't work that way.

 

People making $15 an hour when min wage was $3.25 an hour don't get a raise with equal % when min wage is raised to $7 an hour over time...all you have done is increase the baseline for cost among goods produced by min wage level (unskilled) workers and devalue the labor of skilled workers.