There's no such thing as a pretty good aligator wrestler.
It's true that 37 cents of every dollar was borrowed in 2010, though that's largely due to the economic downturn. Spending cuts need to be the major part of cutting the deficit, but your facts on the tax rates required to significantly affect the deficit are way, way off base. In similar findings from an entirely different non-partisan body, the Congressional Research Service has estimated the 10-year revenue loss from extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts beyond 2010 at $2.9 trillion, with an additional $606 billion in debt service costs (interest), for a combined total of $3.5 trillion. That's without even factoring in a rehaul of the tax code that currently allows for the richest Americans to pay a lower effective income tax rate than average Americans because of deductions, putting their money in stocks that barely get taxed and other loopholes. Over the last ten years, corporate income tax receipts fell 27 percent and declined 34 percent per capita, even though profits boomed, rising 60 percent. Eliminating defense cuts and revenue increases from consideration is not only a far less effective way to cut the deficit in a meaningful way, it also will exacerbate the already worsening income inequities in this country which hurts the economy as a whole.
And about the politicians, I know it won't make much of a difference in the deficit if we cut their spending in half. But if you combine that with no free health care and no pension (because there are more retired politicians than current) it is a little bigger. And it sets an example. Why should they tell you or Flop to pay more if they aren't going to? It is hypocritical. It is the definition of the word. Set the freakin example and then ask and I would respect it more. Right now, all it sounds to me is that they are trying to make sure they will still get theirs. Screw SS, as long as their pension and health care is okay. It seems so obvious. Not requiring them to make the change first just means they never will.
"Poor people have usually made bad decisions in their lives which led to their situation."
45 million Americans are under the poverty line, the idea that most of them are there because they made bad decisions is extremely simplistic and dismissive of a complex and very serious problem. If cutting Medicare and other government programs will help poor people's lot then why is that other developed nations such as Germany with much larger welfare states have less of a poverty problem? I understand the programs have to be cut to get the debt under control, but the idea that local communities will just step in is completely unrealistic. Most of these poor people don't live in "local communities" that have people with means to chip in, they live in shitty neighborhoods with awful education systems. A kid that grows up with a single mother because his father left or is in prison who can't afford to send him to college and doesn't have any positive influences in his life cannot be chalked up to being a lazy asshole just sitting on the couch waiting for the next welfare check. Poverty is a complicated and critical problem that will not be aided by chipping away at the safety net. You talk like all poor people are drug addicts waiting for a welfare check, that's insane. So yes, let's take the necessary actions to reduce the deficit but the illusion that it's going to help poor people really just doesn't add up. Eliminating health benefits for 540 congressmen will make zero difference in the deficit, sorry. I understand what you mean by setting an example but most of them were making more money than their congressional salaries before becoming congressmen anyway. Elected officials, even though I get that you don't respect the job they're doing, have the right to a good health care package - they each represent close to a million people. If people are electing corrupt congressmen then that's their fault, cutting their health benefits so that if they get sick they'll receive worse care than a random rich guy isn't going to make a difference.
I disagree. Most of them did make poor decisions whether that was not studying in school, getting pregnant as a teen, doing or selling drugs, not showing up for work..ect. There are some who really did lose their jobs through no fault of their own. I am okay with helping them get back on their feet but not support them for life. That is another decision that they make. Do I get depressed and quit looking for jobs or pound the pavement?Originally Posted by bwh27;[QUOTE
Last I checked, all of Europe is about to go broke. More poverty is coming.If cutting Medicare and other government programs will help poor people's lot then why is that other developed nations such as Germany with much larger welfare states have less of a poverty problem?
I really don't think it is unrealistic to have communities come together. As far as them living in shitty neighborhoods, I go back to poor choices. They can get together and clean up their own neighborhoods. They can call the cops when they see crimes. They can choose to demand better schools. But all of that starts in the home. If they choose not to do these things, then so be it. Others shouldn't be forced to be enablers for these choices.I understand the programs have to be cut to get the debt under control, but the idea that local communities will just step in is completely unrealistic. Most of these poor people don't live in "local communities" that have people with means to chip in, they live in shitty neighborhoods with awful education systems.
That kid's parents made poor decisions. He can choose to over come it and better himself or walor around in self pity. Yes it's harder for a kid like that but if he chooses not to change his situation, that's on him. He also doesn't have to go to college. College is not for everyone, we complain that manufacturing is leaving the US, so why don't a kid like this get a job at a factory? If he does want to go to college, there are plenty of ways to get the money (grants, scholorships, loans).A kid that grows up with a single mother because his father left or is in prison who can't afford to send him to college and doesn't have any positive influences in his life cannot be chalked up to being a lazy asshole just sitting on the couch waiting for the next welfare check.
I don't mean to sound like that. I know sometimes people hit hard times and that is why I think we should help them. But a lifetime paycheck for doing nothing is not helping them. It should have a cutoff, IMO, but it should also come with job training or placement. That is where we are missing the boat on welfare. Make these people attend classes that teach them job skills and then help them find employment. I'll never understand why we don't do that.Poverty is a complicated and critical problem that will not be aided by chipping away at the safety net. You talk like all poor people are drug addicts waiting for a welfare check, that's insane.
I know it won't make a big difference in the deficit, but it just pisses me off that they say "everyone needs to sacrifice" but they don't sacrifice anything. As far as them making more money before they became congressmen, that could be true but it wasn't tax payer money. Politicians just sicken me, but you're right. If people elect crooked politicians, it's their fault. That would be another example of poor decision making.I understand what you mean by setting an example but most of them were making more money than their congressional salaries before becoming congressmen anyway.
Anyway, good debate.
I am all for cutting the tax breaks for plane owners. Afterall, it was a stimulus line item added by Pelosi in 2009. Why the republicans made an issue out of this is beyond me. I am also not opposed to cutting Bush tax breaks for the top 10%. However, they need to shore up the loop holes, and find a way to exclude small business owners. I can care less about hedge fund taxes going higher. We need to stay focused on what effects the average American family directly when we think about raising taxes or doing away with breaks. I am as conservative as it gets and I am getting irritated on the issues the right is making noise about.
The left needs to give up on the debt ceiling and use that as a focus to make necessary cuts. The states do a better job since they do not allow for spending to exceed their budgets by law.The national government needs this as well. Stimuluses are not having the effect they think they do. We need to stay focused on cutting, and not making a fuss over tax breaks getting dropped. I do not consider dropping a tax break as raising taxes if there is an expiration on them. However, we do need to time their expiration wisely.
I look at taxes much like managing a homeowner's association. If we want to maintain a luxurious waterpark, with waterslides and pools, we need to raise fees to afford them. An HOA never borrows to pay for maintanance fees. Only the federal government could dream that up. If too many homes are up for foreclosure, the HOA revenue goes down. You are then left with a choice either to raise the monthly dues or to get rid of maintanance items. This should go with lowering HOA overhead and recontracting lower rates to assure they get the most for their money. In this case, you may have to privatize the waterpark somehow.
I wish the government was this cut and dry.
Last edited by leglace; 07-07-2011 at 12:57 PM.
I pictured you as that guy Gaylord in Showboat, passing up taxis to walk because he's broke and playing it off as if it's the doctor's advice. - Clmetal
For example, my friend works for Pioneer (you know, Pioneer stereos in cars). After the earthquake in Japan, he got laid off because the cars they were building them for weren't being built. People who supplied parts to his plant were shut down because of damage and it shut him down. Same thing will happen if people stop buying jets and planes. It affects a whole lot of people, the rich being the least of them.