jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jul 22, 2011 15:30:25 GMT -5
So again, what is so bad about cut cap and balance that the President promised to veto it? i think there were two issues there. one is that the cap was 18% -vs- the current standard of 24% second is that the balanced budget part would require cuts only, and no tax increases. And? What's the problem? If I don't have enough money to pay my bills, I cut back on my expenses...I don't just go steal someone else's money to cover the gap. If we allow the government to raise taxes whenever they run out of money, then how does government spending ever get reigned in? Apparently Obama and Dems show their true intentions: no cuts (or promises of cuts but nothing actually cut) and just take more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more via taxes.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 22, 2011 15:34:52 GMT -5
i think there were two issues there. one is that the cap was 18% -vs- the current standard of 24% second is that the balanced budget part would require cuts only, and no tax increases. And? What's the problem? If I don't have enough money to pay my bills, I cut back on my expenses...I don't just go steal someone else's money to cover the gap. that is not the proper analogy. the proper analogy is that you take $15k out for an extravagant vacation and then stiff the credit card company? no. first you pay what you owe, even if you have to take a second job to do it. if you want to get your affairs in order at the same time, that is perfectly fine. historically, revenues have been about 18%. during times of war- they have generally been far higher. in terms of the first world, only ICELAND collects less as a % of GDP than we do. that is pathetic. if we want a first class government, we should pay for it. otherwise, we can turn this country into Rwanda. on my worst days, that is what i think the GOP has in mind.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 22, 2011 15:38:13 GMT -5
If we allow the government to raise taxes whenever they run out of money, then how does government spending ever get reigned in? Apparently Obama and Dems show their true intentions: no cuts (or promises of cuts but nothing actually cut) and just take more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more via taxes. first of all, the government has not raised taxes whenever they run out of money. taxes have been cut steadily for the last THIRTY YEARS, and the government has been in deficits the entire time. and secondly, you used about (15) more "more"'s than you needed to. what has been proposed is that we cut about $4 for every $1 we raise taxes. that does not seem outlandish to me. in fact, it seems really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really conservative.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jul 22, 2011 15:40:28 GMT -5
And? What's the problem? If I don't have enough money to pay my bills, I cut back on my expenses...I don't just go steal someone else's money to cover the gap. that is not the proper analogy. the proper analogy is that you take $15k out for an extravagant vacation and then stiff the credit card company? no. first you pay what you owe, even if you have to take a second job to do it. if you want to get your affairs in order at the same time, that is perfectly fine. historically, revenues have been about 18%. during times of war- they have generally been far higher. in terms of the first world, only ICELAND collects less as a % of GDP than we do. that is pathetic. if we want a first class government, we should pay for it. otherwise, we can turn this country into Rwanda. on my worst days, that is what i think the GOP has in mind. Except that the second job in this case is just pointing a gun at somebody and saying give me more money. You think the Federal Government taking 18% of the GDP is pathetically low?
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jul 22, 2011 15:49:08 GMT -5
>>in terms of the first world, only ICELAND collects less as a % of GDP than we do. that is pathetic. if we want a first class government, we should pay for it.<<
Just because the government does something now does not mean it should do it - in which case the money is being collected and wasted on something it has no business doing.
Those other countries taking more money by % of GDP also have MUCH HIGHER debt vs GDP. Now THAT is pathetic...and entitlement nanny-state at its best...and definitely not a path I want this country to take. It also proves that when government takes more money it spends even more!
Higher taxes will mean higher spending...all of this talk about 4 to 1 cuts is just hot air given their history. They must prove they can actually cut something FIRST before they raise taxes. They have yet to prove they can actually do this.
Remember that $38B in cuts the Dems needed their arms twisted for a few months ago came up about 99% short of the goal...THAT is also pathetic.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 22, 2011 15:52:51 GMT -5
... You think the Federal Government taking 18% of the GDP is pathetically low? Considering the fact that the American people have repeatedly elected people who have created the expenditures which we currently have, I think that the American people are not paying what is necessary to cover those expenses is pathetic. What the percentage is irrelevant.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Jul 22, 2011 16:00:44 GMT -5
It is December of 1999 again, folks. Remember how the world was going to , , "poof" and disappear at midnight on the 31st? I forget whether it was supposed to happen all at once when the clock struck midnight and the 21st century began at the 180th Meridian, (The International Date Line), or if it was supposed to happen gradually as the new century began hour by hour, time zone by time zone on January 1st, 2000. I remember there were dire predictions all around us. But for some unknown reason the new day began, the new century along with it, and in fact a new millenium was born, all on the same day, and nothing worth noting was experienced by anyone, anywhere.
Who wants to give odds that we will wake up August the 3rd and find it will be "just another day"?
The Democrats have been predicting all the calamities. According to them everything negative that can happen will happen unless they choose to step up and save the day. So I'm asking what Democrat will give odds that they take credit when the day gets saved?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 22, 2011 16:01:58 GMT -5
that is not the proper analogy. the proper analogy is that you take $15k out for an extravagant vacation and then stiff the credit card company? no. first you pay what you owe, even if you have to take a second job to do it. if you want to get your affairs in order at the same time, that is perfectly fine. historically, revenues have been about 18%. during times of war- they have generally been far higher. in terms of the first world, only ICELAND collects less as a % of GDP than we do. that is pathetic. if we want a first class government, we should pay for it. otherwise, we can turn this country into Rwanda. on my worst days, that is what i think the GOP has in mind. Except that the second job in this case is just pointing a gun at somebody and saying give me more money. no it isn't. you can go bankrupt, too. it is all about choices. being cavalier about what you owe is not especially virtuous, imo. manning up and paying what you borrowed IS.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 22, 2011 16:03:09 GMT -5
You think the Federal Government taking 18% of the GDP is pathetically low? no. i think it is just about right. we are currently taking in 14.4% and yes, i think that is pathetically low.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 22, 2011 16:04:16 GMT -5
>>in terms of the first world, only ICELAND collects less as a % of GDP than we do. that is pathetic. if we want a first class government, we should pay for it.<< Just because the government does something now does not mean it should do it - in which case the money is being collected and wasted on something it has no business doing. hey, i am just as against the wars in the ME as anyone. but simply saying that we are not going to pay for them is not really an option.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Jul 22, 2011 16:06:17 GMT -5
being cavalier about what you owe is not especially virtuous, imo. manning up and paying what you borrowed IS. Couldn't agree more. . . . BUT Being prudent about reducing spending at current levels even while recognizing the hazards of limited borrowintg power is to display wisdom. Where is the wisdom being displayed?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 22, 2011 16:07:02 GMT -5
Those other countries taking more money by % of GDP also have MUCH HIGHER debt vs GDP. false. Iceland also has a higher debt as a % of GDP. the US is actually 11th, measured on that scale. Ireland, which was as recently as a few years ago held up as a model of supply side economics, is either first or second. that is where the US is heading. do you ever check your facts before you post?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 22, 2011 16:08:08 GMT -5
Higher taxes will mean higher spending...all of this talk about 4 to 1 cuts is just hot air given their history. so is 4:0. so what is the point? i mean, seriously. if you don't believe in the cuts, then why even bother?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 22, 2011 16:08:59 GMT -5
being cavalier about what you owe is not especially virtuous, imo. manning up and paying what you borrowed IS. Couldn't agree more. . . . BUT Being prudent about reducing spending at current levels even while recognizing the hazards of limited borrowintg power is to display wisdom. Where is the wisdom being displayed? i think the current round of negotiations are putting it on display daily. don't you?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 22, 2011 16:10:30 GMT -5
Remember that $38B in cuts the Dems needed their arms twisted for a few months ago came up about 99% short of the goal...THAT is also pathetic. agreed, but i don't think the comparison to today is valid. Obama was very clear that he was not going to go for spending cuts that early in the recovery. now, he is talking daily about "going big". i think the GOP should take him up on it.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jul 22, 2011 16:12:17 GMT -5
Higher taxes will mean higher spending...all of this talk about 4 to 1 cuts is just hot air given their history. so is 4:0. so what is the point? i mean, seriously. if you don't believe in the cuts, then why even bother? I'm saying they have to prove they can cut first...they have yet to do this. If you want to fall for their lies again, I don't want to hear your bitching afterwards
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jul 22, 2011 16:23:04 GMT -5
Those other countries taking more money by % of GDP also have MUCH HIGHER debt vs GDP. false. Iceland also has a higher debt as a % of GDP. the US is actually 11th, measured on that scale. Ireland, which was as recently as a few years ago held up as a model of supply side economics, is either first or second. that is where the US is heading. do you ever check your facts before you post? yes I do...but they are actually facts, not made-up liberal blog figures CIA/EuroStat rankings 2010: Japan 225.8% Greece 144% Iceland 123.8% Italy 118.1% Belgium 98.6% Ireland 94.2% (hardly a model to be held up to) France 83.5% Portugal 83.2% Germany 78.8% Israel 77.3% UK 76.5% Austria 70.4% Netherands 64.6% Spain 63.4% Brazil 60.8% US 58.9%Poland 55% Finland 48.4% Norway 47.7% Denmark 43.6% Mexico 41.5% Sweden 39.8% Switzerland 38.2% Canada 34%
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jul 22, 2011 16:24:49 GMT -5
But just think about it , even if it was 18%, isn't that an insanely huge chunk out of GDP for the Federal Government to take? Depends on how you look at it. I read it was 19% & was set because that was historical spending levels. 18-19% has been the historic tax revenue. So based on those historic levels it may not be too high. The biggest problem I see is that right now tax revenues are at less than 15% GDP & republicans are fighting any form of tax increases. So limiting spending to even just 19% won't dig us out of any hole. I am guessing the biggest reason the dems are against it is because of how difficult it makes any future tax increases. I really feel as a whole, the republicans are shooting themselves in the foot with this "no tax increases at all" thing because they have taken it way too far. Based on their definition, getting rid of or reducing EITC is a tax increase, reducing the child tax credit is a tax increase, doing anything to change the fact that 50% pay no federal taxes is a tax increase.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jul 22, 2011 16:28:34 GMT -5
Higher taxes will mean higher spending...all of this talk about 4 to 1 cuts is just hot air given their history. so is 4:0. so what is the point? i mean, seriously. if you don't believe in the cuts, then why even bother? LOL!
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jul 22, 2011 16:51:11 GMT -5
Except that the second job in this case is just pointing a gun at somebody and saying give me more money. no it isn't. you can go bankrupt, too. it is all about choices. being cavalier about what you owe is not especially virtuous, imo. manning up and paying what you borrowed IS. Yes, you can go bankrupt, or you can prioritize your payments. Just borrowing more to meet you desired ends seems far more dangerous and cavalier than actually manning up and cutting spending. By borrowing more to meet current demands seems like a complete disregard for the actual problem of spending.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Jul 22, 2011 16:51:50 GMT -5
dj said:
Frankly no I don't. What I think I see is President Obama syndrome at work. The thoughts that no matter how little he gets from playing like he knows what he is doing, there is a multitude of voters willing to give him credit for not "loosing", and with everything to gain playing class against class, he will continue to play class against class. It's the only game he has ever learned the rules to. And the rules are simple: There are no rules.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 22, 2011 17:23:09 GMT -5
As far as I know neither one of those statements is true. could be. it doesn't really matter that much, tho. the bill failed.(b) Amendment to Title 31- Effective on the date the Archivist of the United States transmits to the States H.J. Res 1 in the form reported, S.J. Res. 10 in the form introduced, or H.J. Res. 56 in the form introduced, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, or a similar amendment if it requires that total outlays not exceed total receipts, contains a spending limitation as a percentage of GDP, and requires tax increases be approved by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress for their ratification, section 3101(b) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting $16,700,000,000,000. www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-2560ah yes, it was the supermajority- which neither house has held since WW2. that virtually ensures no new taxes, right?The section of the law with GDP percentage caps has exemptions and is for the future, which is virtually meaningless and isn't 18% in any regard. point concededBut just think about it , even if it was 18%, isn't that an insanely huge chunk out of GDP for the Federal Government to take? no, it really isn't. Norway takes either 28% or 30%, i think. i am not even sure that THAT is insane. but it serves as a basis of comparison of what is "sustainable" in other parts of the world.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 22, 2011 17:24:35 GMT -5
dj said: Frankly no I don't. okey doke. i do.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 22, 2011 17:26:23 GMT -5
false. Iceland also has a higher debt as a % of GDP. the US is actually 11th, measured on that scale. Ireland, which was as recently as a few years ago held up as a model of supply side economics, is either first or second. that is where the US is heading. do you ever check your facts before you post? yes I do...but they are actually facts, not made-up liberal blog figures CIA/EuroStat rankings 2010: Japan 225.8% Greece 144% Iceland 123.8% Italy 118.1% Belgium 98.6% Ireland 94.2% (hardly a model to be held up to) couldn't agree with you more. France 83.5% Portugal 83.2% Germany 78.8% Israel 77.3% UK 76.5% Austria 70.4% Netherands 64.6% Spain 63.4% Brazil 60.8% US 58.9%this is way lower of a number than i get.
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Jul 22, 2011 19:27:13 GMT -5
I wonder how Reid will explain this to his high roller supporters in Vegas? He may find their check books are closed when he puts his hand out next time. Reading Wynn's comments he was for just what the bill Reid would not support was about.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 22, 2011 20:06:17 GMT -5
I wonder how Reid will explain this to his high roller supporters in Vegas? He may find their check books are closed when he puts his hand out next time. Reading Wynn's comments he was for just what the bill Reid would not support was about. precisely. i don't know how he can call Reid a friend and Obama an enemy. that makes zero sense to me. Wynn must have Reid in his pocket, is all i can figure.
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Jul 22, 2011 20:19:41 GMT -5
Dj The only question I have if Wynn had Reid in his pocket why did Reid not support the bill? Did he double cross his patron?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 22, 2011 20:25:40 GMT -5
Dj The only question I have if Wynn had Reid in his pocket why did Reid not support the bill? Did he double cross his patron? this time YOU misunderstood ME. ;] i meant at the STATE level. yeah- i already said that Reid sounds just like Obama on the debt ceiling issue. so for Wynn to like Reid and NOT Obama makes about as much sense as liking strawberry jam but not strawberry preserves.
|
|
hannah27
Initiate Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 10:51:40 GMT -5
Posts: 69
|
Post by hannah27 on Jul 23, 2011 10:23:43 GMT -5
And? What's the problem? If I don't have enough money to pay my bills, I cut back on my expenses...I don't just go steal someone else's money to cover the gap. If you have insufficient income to cover necessary fixed expenses, you have no real alternative to finding a means to increase income. This assumes that you are in agreement with other family members on how you collectively define necessary and fixed. If you already agreed to buy Grandma her blood pressure meds because she can't afford them if she also wants to eat, are you now going to tell her she's on her own because it's cutting too much into your budget? We live in a capitalist society, which pleases many of the people on this board. A capitalist system is all about never-ending growth. What's the problem with government spending tagging along? Nonsense.
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Jul 23, 2011 10:40:42 GMT -5
Quote: If we allow the government to raise taxes whenever they run out of money, then how does government spending ever get reigned in?
Quote: We live in a capitalist society, which pleases many of the people on this board. A capitalist system is all about never-ending growth. What's the problem with government spending tagging along?
The problem is with expecting growth to tag along with spending. It doesn't work that way. A "capitalist system" is diminished by government regulation, so that oppressive regulation and taxation effectively smothers the virtue of "never-ending growth." Your reasoning is like that of the housewife who expects her husbands income to increase to match whatever she chooses to spend, whatever that is. The eventual result is bills that cannot be paid.
|
|