gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on Feb 6, 2016 15:05:48 GMT -5
I think that some misunderstand the notion of "fiscal conservatism" . Or maybe I am To my personal opinion fiscal conservatism doesn't necessarily mean "stop spending" or " freeze spending" but it means spending money that you have or even if it means acumulating debt then you spend it on things that matter, that have some real impact in the conditions of life, standards and influence the future in a positive way. For that matter, education, healthcare, infrastructure, encironment protection, are the top of spending list. Military spending is a close follower. But there is such a variety of interpretation on "what's a must" and what we can deal without it that make it the real problem when a decision needs to be made. Republicans can call themselves all they want "fiscal conservatives" but the only president that run a surplus in the last 50 years is none other than Clinton and the next one as far as lower deficit compared to GDP is none other than Obama. That being said, who's the fiscal conservative now? Republicans or democrats?Neither.
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Feb 6, 2016 15:37:28 GMT -5
I completely agree with you Greg but the issue is that the republicans tout themselves as "fiscal conservatives" while depicting the democrats as avid spenders or the record shows otherwise. At least they could stop calling themselves that maybe just as a sign that they understand how hypocritical they sound when they make the claim.
No mater who becomes president, a budget deficit is unavoidable. The only chance at lowering the deficit of have a surplus( which we should!) is to raise the taxes over certain incomes and get rid of all tax loopholes that the corporations are using. I'd give the corporations a tax incentive for producing in the USA. Assembling would not qualify, their crap would still be made outside US.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Feb 6, 2016 16:13:36 GMT -5
You want to solve the debt issue? You will need to increase revenues and cut spending. That doesn't seem to be a campaign pledge from any of the current crop.
|
|
gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on Feb 6, 2016 16:18:31 GMT -5
I completely agree with you Greg but the issue is that the republicans tout themselves as "fiscal conservatives" while depicting the democrats as avid spenders or the record shows otherwise. At least they could stop calling themselves that maybe just as a sign that they understand how hypocritical they sound when they make the claim. No mater who becomes president, a budget deficit is unavoidable. The only chance at lowering the deficit of have a surplus( which we should!) is to raise the taxes over certain incomes and get rid of all tax loopholes that the corporations are using. I'd give the corporations a tax incentive for producing in the USA. Assembling would not qualify, their crap would still be made outside US. I'm with you on part of it. Raising taxes is a no no for me. If you did, however, you should raise taxes on everyone; not just the wealthy.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Feb 6, 2016 16:45:00 GMT -5
Raising taxes is a no no for me. If you did, however, you should raise taxes on everyone; not just the wealthy. So not that serious about cutting into the debt afterall. Considering that the "wealthy" now have so much more of the pie and most of the income gains of the last 35 years, due to tax cuts from conservative prez, let's make sure we squeeze the little guy that can't afford it and just a bit for those that have reaped unconscionable benefits therein.
|
|
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 Feb 6, 2016 19:39:15 GMT -5
Raising taxes is a no no for me. If you did, however, you should raise taxes on everyone; not just the wealthy. So not that serious about cutting into the debt afterall. Considering that the "wealthy" now have so much more of the pie and most of the income gains of the last 35 years, due to tax cuts from conservative prez, let's make sure we squeeze the little guy that can't afford it and just a bit for those that have reaped unconscionable benefits therein. ability to pay should be the sole determinant, imo. if you are unable to pay, or if it will put you on the dole to pay, then you shouldn't pay.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Feb 6, 2016 21:05:23 GMT -5
Here's a novel concept. People get paid enough so they do pay some taxes. Just think....pay gains equal to productivity gains from 1975 until now. MW indexed to inflation at a minimum. Consumer spending rises and creates more good paying jobs through business expansion. A rising tide raising all boats.
Or we can continue down the road to oligarchy with normal Joe's opposed to MW increases, supporting union busting, no tax increases for the uber wealthy, very profitable corps. paying so little their employees require govt. assistance, and then normal Joe's whining about all the folks on that same assistance and ignoring the impact of hunger on children.
|
|
gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on Feb 6, 2016 22:09:15 GMT -5
Raising taxes is a no no for me. If you did, however, you should raise taxes on everyone; not just the wealthy. So not that serious about cutting into the debt afterall. Considering that the "wealthy" now have so much more of the pie and most of the income gains of the last 35 years, due to tax cuts from conservative prez, let's make sure we squeeze the little guy that can't afford it and just a bit for those that have reaped unconscionable benefits therein. ability to pay should be the sole determinant, imo. if you are unable to pay, or if it will put you on the dole to pay, then you shouldn't pay. Who determines that? We all have the "ability" to pay.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Feb 7, 2016 12:32:02 GMT -5
For those truly interested, the Federal Budget in summarized detail can be found by googling Federal Budget by Agency and Account (it is a pdf file), although I don't think the most recent budget is out there yet. The I found is a couple years old and I know some numbers have changed
Spend multitudes of time cleaning up ALL government agencies and their spending - something that has never been done. They are currently wasting an estimated $250B a year (most likely even more than that). So if we can cut a good portion of that out, we are already 1/3 of the way there. (~$250B saved)
End Dept of Education (~$70B saved)
Cut back on Dept of Homeland Security (say about $20B), push half of that to border security and illegal immigration enforcement. (~$10B saved)
End Dept of Housing and Urban Development (~30B saved)
End the so-called SuperFund which has been a colossal failure/waste from the get-go (~2B saved)
Cut International Assistance programs (~25B saved)
Trim NASA down to the most beneficial programs - i.e. Fuck Mars (~$10B saved)
Change Federal Pension guidelines so that federal employees cannot game a huge pension increase by getting promoted/large pay increase during the last three years of service, and also work to cut the overly generous pensions. (~10B saved = 1.9M pension holders at an avg $5000 reduced benefit per year which would still be a far better pension than anywhere else in America)
So that's well over half way there (about $400B). If I had more time, I would continue to look...hopefully I can come back to this later, there were some departments I only skimmed through.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Feb 7, 2016 12:38:23 GMT -5
I think that some misunderstand the notion of "fiscal conservatism" . Or maybe I am To my personal opinion fiscal conservatism doesn't necessarily mean "stop spending" or " freeze spending" but it means spending money that you have or even if it means acumulating debt then you spend it on things that matter, that have some real impact in the conditions of life, standards and influence the future in a positive way. For that matter, education, healthcare, infrastructure, encironment protection, are the top of spending list. Military spending is a close follower. But there is such a variety of interpretation on "what's a must" and what we can deal without it that make it the real problem when a decision needs to be made. Republicans can call themselves all they want "fiscal conservatives" but the only president that run a surplus in the last 50 years is none other than Clinton and the next one as far as lower deficit compared to GDP is none other than Obama. That being said, who's the fiscal conservative now? Republicans or democrats? AGAIN for the millionth time, Clinton didn't run a surplus. He had a surplus showing on his BUDGET, but that surplus never materialized because the economy tanked in his last couple years in office.
But if you want to continue to use the surplus propaganda, then Republicans can just say that the reason Clinton and Obama did so well was because Republicans were in charge of the purse strings during their presidencies (they had the Congressional majorities during those two presidents' "good times.")
So, in actuality, you are praising Republicans when talking about Clinton's surplus
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Feb 7, 2016 12:40:37 GMT -5
Raising taxes is a no no for me. If you did, however, you should raise taxes on everyone; not just the wealthy. So not that serious about cutting into the debt afterall. Considering that the "wealthy" now have so much more of the pie and most of the income gains of the last 35 years, due to tax cuts from conservative prez, let's make sure we squeeze the little guy that can't afford it and just a bit for those that have reaped unconscionable benefits therein. ability to pay should be the sole determinant, imo. if you are unable to pay, or if it will put you on the dole to pay, then you shouldn't pay. IMO If they have money for beer, cigarettes, and pot then they have money to pay some taxes...
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 7, 2016 12:48:15 GMT -5
The obvious answer is to greatly increase the taxes on beer, cigarettes, and pot. Wouldn't you say?
|
|
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 Feb 7, 2016 12:49:59 GMT -5
ability to pay should be the sole determinant, imo. if you are unable to pay, or if it will put you on the dole to pay, then you shouldn't pay. Who determines that? We all have the "ability" to pay. i was using the standard terminology that LENDERS use.
|
|
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 Feb 7, 2016 12:50:40 GMT -5
ability to pay should be the sole determinant, imo. if you are unable to pay, or if it will put you on the dole to pay, then you shouldn't pay. IMO If they have money for beer, cigarettes, and pot then they have money to pay some taxes... they do pay some taxes. they pay hella taxes on beer and cigarettes.
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Feb 7, 2016 15:21:50 GMT -5
"Cut back on Dept of Homeland Security (say about $20B), push half of that to border security and illegal immigration enforcement. ($10 Billion saved)"
jkapp- ICE, USCIS- both immigration agencies are part of DHS! So is Border Patrol, Customs and surprise-surprise, the Coast Guard!
|
|
gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on Feb 7, 2016 17:31:01 GMT -5
"Cut back on Dept of Homeland Security (say about $20B), push half of that to border security and illegal immigration enforcement. ($10 Billion saved)" jkapp- ICE, USCIS- both immigration agencies are part of DHS! So is Border Patrol, Customs and surprise-surprise, the Coast Guard!So is the Dept. of Motor Vehicles, where you get your driver's license. This wasn't always the case.
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Feb 7, 2016 18:41:01 GMT -5
The point is that cutting funding from DHS and moving it to ICE or any other of the agencies within DHS doesn't mean that you "reduced funding" to DHS! Means that you moved funds around! And and just for my own understanding: aren't most of the "fiscally conservative" individuals FOR a stronger border and immigration control? If you defund that(?) how would you achieve security? Is the Donald gonna fix that for you?
|
|
gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on Feb 7, 2016 19:11:58 GMT -5
The point is that cutting funding from DHS and moving it to ICE or any other of the agencies within DHS doesn't mean that you "reduced funding" to DHS! Means that you moved funds around! And and just for my own understanding: aren't most of the "fiscally conservative" individuals FOR a stronger border and immigration control? If you defund that(?) how would you achieve security?
www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/item/22478-border-patrol-agents-ordered-to-stand-down-in-enforcing-immigration-lawsSince our commander in chief has ordered the border patrol to stand down, what is the point in spending the money to have them?
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Feb 7, 2016 20:29:48 GMT -5
Apologies Greg! After posting I realized that some or most associate Almighty with God and it is uncalled for. In some circles, The Donald is the Almighty since he has a solution(but no explanation) for everything so his actions can be called miracles since they just happen upon his request.
And "apologist in chief", really? Liking or disliking him, as it is presently, BH Obama is the sitting POTUS and for that matter deserves the respect and proper addressing to. Just as much as President Bush, President Clinton or President Bush Sr. Or any of the former presidents. Didn't like all of them but nonetheless they are still Mr. President!
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Feb 7, 2016 20:39:18 GMT -5
IMO If they have money for beer, cigarettes, and pot then they have money to pay some taxes... they do pay some taxes. they pay hella taxes on beer and cigarettes. Yes, but why not cut out the middle-man? If people want to cut out the middle-man for insurance, then why not cut out the middle-man for taxes on liquor, cigarettes, and pot?
|
|
gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on Feb 7, 2016 20:44:48 GMT -5
Apologies Greg! After posting I realized that some or most associate Almighty with God and it is uncalled for. In some circles, The Donald is the Almighty since he has a solution(but no explanation) for everything so his actions can be called miracles since they just happen upon his request. And "apologist in chief", really? Liking or disliking him, as it is presently, BH Obama is the sitting POTUS and for that matter deserves the respect and proper addressing to. Just as much as President Bush, President Clinton or President Bush Sr. Or any of the former presidents. Didn't like all of them but nonetheless they are still Mr. President! Please don't mistake me for a Trump supporter. You're probably right. I'll go back and change my post.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2016 21:54:36 GMT -5
I completely agree with you Greg but the issue is that the republicans tout themselves as "fiscal conservatives" while depicting the democrats as avid spenders or the record shows otherwise. At least they could stop calling themselves that maybe just as a sign that they understand how hypocritical they sound when they make the claim. No mater who becomes president, a budget deficit is unavoidable. The only chance at lowering the deficit of have a surplus( which we should!) is to raise the taxes over certain incomes and get rid of all tax loopholes that the corporations are using. I'd give the corporations a tax incentive for producing in the USA. Assembling would not qualify, their crap would still be made outside US. I'm with you on part of it. Raising taxes is a no no for me. If you did, however, you should raise taxes on everyone; not just the wealthy. So someone, sooner or later, is going to pay for all the spending we do now? Is that right? Either directly pay it or pay through inflation or something. If that is right who do you think it will be? I don't know or have any idea who it will be
|
|
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 Feb 7, 2016 22:11:28 GMT -5
I'm with you on part of it. Raising taxes is a no no for me. If you did, however, you should raise taxes on everyone; not just the wealthy. So someone, sooner or later, is going to pay for all the spending we do now? Is that right? Either directly pay it or pay through inflation or something. If that is right who do you think it will be? I don't know or have any idea who it will be it will become clearer when someone can be elected making a case that it should be done through higher taxes.
|
|
gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on Feb 7, 2016 22:25:04 GMT -5
I'm with you on part of it. Raising taxes is a no no for me. If you did, however, you should raise taxes on everyone; not just the wealthy. So someone, sooner or later, is going to pay for all the spending we do now? Is that right? Either directly pay it or pay through inflation or something. If that is right who do you think it will be? I don't know or have any idea who it will be We should cut spending now. We take in taxes. If we cut spending below tax income, it'll work itsself out sooner or later without tax increases.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 7, 2016 22:27:48 GMT -5
VERY slowly, and even that only if interest rates don't go up. What do you think the chances are?
|
|
gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on Feb 7, 2016 22:32:39 GMT -5
VERY slowly, and even that only if interest rates don't go up. What do you think the chances are? It's how I got out of debt. I didn't get to raise taxes to do it. I spent less than I made, and payed the rest on debt.
|
|
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 Feb 7, 2016 22:39:35 GMT -5
VERY slowly, and even that only if interest rates don't go up. What do you think the chances are? It's how I got out of debt. I didn't get to raise taxes to do it. I spent less than I made, and payed the rest on debt. ignoring for a moment that government and individual are not a very good analogy: did your income go up?
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Feb 7, 2016 23:01:45 GMT -5
Apologies Greg! After posting I realized that some or most associate Almighty with God and it is uncalled for. In some circles, The Donald is the Almighty since he has a solution(but no explanation) for everything so his actions can be called miracles since they just happen upon his request. And "apologist in chief", really? Liking or disliking him, as it is presently, BH Obama is the sitting POTUS and for that matter deserves the respect and proper addressing to. Just as much as President Bush, President Clinton or President Bush Sr. Or any of the former presidents. Didn't like all of them but nonetheless they are still Mr. President! Some one here had respect for Bush?? you could have fooled me!
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Feb 7, 2016 23:05:07 GMT -5
Another government agency that could be eliminated, The Department Of Energy.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 7, 2016 23:07:21 GMT -5
Apologies Greg! After posting I realized that some or most associate Almighty with God and it is uncalled for. In some circles, The Donald is the Almighty since he has a solution(but no explanation) for everything so his actions can be called miracles since they just happen upon his request. And "apologist in chief", really? Liking or disliking him, as it is presently, BH Obama is the sitting POTUS and for that matter deserves the respect and proper addressing to. Just as much as President Bush, President Clinton or President Bush Sr. Or any of the former presidents. Didn't like all of them but nonetheless they are still Mr. President! Some one here had respect for Bush?? you could have fooled me! Not the man, and certainly not the job he did, but for the office itself? Yes. That is why I always referred to him as Former President Bush or George W. Bush rather than any of other various names or epithets.
|
|