[Shinrei]

Well, I'm not sure this debt ceiling thing needs to come up every 6 months, BUT, I think that there needs to be a continuing urgency to the dialogue on tax reform and spending cuts (and entitlement reform).

[HoosierDaddy]

Shinrei, on 30 July 2011 - 04:11 AM, said:

Well, I'm not sure this debt ceiling thing needs to come up every 6 months, BUT, I think that there needs to be a continuing urgency to the dialogue on tax reform and spending cuts (and entitlement reform).

I agree that it needs to be a priority for those things. Tax reform would be tantamount to tax-increases, which is why Grover Nordquist's children refuse to budge on it. What there doesn't need to be is hijacking of apolitical things, like raising the debt ceiling, to suit the politics of people who wish to prove government is broken by breaking it.

This situation is good for no one but those people, and I don't fancy listening to the string quartet while the Titanic goes down.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 30 July 2011 - 09:14 PM

[RaRugged]

I find it funny how the liberal solution to solving lobbying, inefficiency, corruption is...... A BIGGER GOVERNMENT!

"IT'S NOT THE INSTITUTION THAT'S AT FAULT! IT'S THE DAMN PEOPLE RUNNING IT! THOSE DAMN NEO-CONS! DAMN FOX NEWS FOR PITTING AMERICA AGAINST US!"

You don't solve the effects of big government by expanding it further.

Funny how those who hate lobbyists and big corporations want to pass laws to regulate them.... Guess who's controlling the legislative process? Lobbyists and big corporations. What a circular argument.




And no: when people pay taxes, they should receive what they paid in. I shouldn't have to pay taxes to watch the government spend it on subsidizing environmental groups, if it's not in my interest.
So how can we possibly return everyone's tax money back so they like it? We can't. That's why we should reduce taxes --> reduce government.

Come on, our Founding Fathers envisioned our government to only do simple but essential tasks (police force, national defense, courts...) not running every aspect of our life: education, health care, food, energy, transportation, business, sex.....

[worry]

Welp, that settles everything I guess.

[Tapper]

RaRugged, on 31 July 2011 - 03:55 PM, said:

I find it funny how the liberal solution to solving lobbying, inefficiency, corruption is...... A BIGGER GOVERNMENT!

The solution isn't a bigger government. The solution is an efficient government with enough capability, workforce and monetary power to complete its goals. Reorganization takes a whole lot of time. And costs more. Also, how corrupt is your government? Believe me, Albania is worse.

Quote

"IT'S NOT THE INSTITUTION THAT'S AT FAULT! IT'S THE DAMN PEOPLE RUNNING IT! THOSE DAMN NEO-CONS! DAMN FOX NEWS FOR PITTING AMERICA AGAINST US!"

You don't solve the effects of big government by expanding it further.

No-one is saying it can or should be expanded. If that is what you are thinking, good sir, think again. What is being said is that the Federal government needs money to pay for the contintuity of things that have been deemed vital by democrats and republicans alike when they were in charge.

As much as I may like people posting in caps, turn the argument upside down for a second. Sure, there are branches within the government that do nearly the same thing as the other. Sure, they can be rearranged and be made more efficient. But how efficient do you want it? Just ask yourself this: do you really want the govt to control all information super efficiently in one big massive database? your social security number, tax and pay info, health issues, criminal records, resumes you submitted when applying for govt jobs, times when yuo left the country, and for how long, who your relatives are and what their info is, et cetera? All available at the press of a button to someone with enough authorization? I bet conservatives have something to say about that, too.

Secondly, it is all good and well to dream about a limited government, but do you know how much firing people, reorganizing entire organizations and moving assets and property et cetera cost? It may be cheaper to just hire nobody else and let them fizz out, especially in a time of crisis like now.

thirdly, let's imagine how your country works, then, with less people and less knowledge and a whole lot of things more outside of their jurisdiction? In extremis, you get this:

"There's X people dead in Norway!"
"I'm off duty, it is the middle of the night, for fuck's sake."
"Oh, ehm, sorry. That explains why I didn't get the receptionist but you directly, mister president."
"Well, our only press officer is off because his wife is pregnant so we can;t make a statement. Who did it?"
"We better turn on CNN because we cut down on the foreign office."
"They say it;s muslims that did it."
"Fuck, not those idiots again."

Quote

Funny how those who hate lobbyists and big corporations want to pass laws to regulate them.... Guess who's controlling the legislative process? Lobbyists and big corporations. What a circular argument.

You say yourself this:
our Founding Fathers envisioned our government to only do simple but essential tasks (police force, national defense, courts...)
If Business meddles with that, even you should agree that Business should be slapped on the fingers. So yeah, people disliking it have a point. You say so yourself.

Quote

And no: when people pay taxes, they should receive what they paid in.

I wonder what the Hilton family would receive for their substantial tax deposits each year... boob implants, new bags for Paris, perhaps? And Joe the Plumber would not be able to get access to chemotherapy if he needed it. Such a nice, happy world. At the least, he had the nice comforting thought that he received more tax benefit than poor old Al, who got wounded in a tragic work accident, lost all his fingers and was only trained as a lumberjack, and who couldn;t afford a lawyer to press his case. He died in a dumbster, without so much as a crust of bread to his name.

What a nice, equal world you want. It's so well thought out, and it truly, truly gives everyone a chance to make something of their life!

Quote

So how can we possibly return everyone's tax money back so they like it? We can't. That's why we should reduce taxes --> reduce government.

You can, by voting people into power who share your ideas. Oh wait, y'know, I just get this idea... isn't the government already ran by the people elected? Shit, someone had this idea before me. Bugger. But... doesn't that mean they managed to gain a majority (well, not always ) of people who agree with their initial ideas? Shock and horror, so that's what elections mean!

i'll give you this, though... the sheer difficulty the current administration is having with making Bush' tax cuts undone, limiting government through tax cuts may be more efficient than trying to reduce debt.

Quote

Come on, our Founding Fathers envisioned our government to only do simple but essential tasks (police force, national defense, courts...) not running every aspect of our life: education, health care, food, energy, transportation, business, sex.....

If you want your life to be ran the way people thought it ought to be ran 230 years ago, when, say, the need for energy wasn't even equal to 1% of what energy distribution is now, maybe you should join the Amish way of life. In that case, stop spouting how much you want it to be that way, because, good sir, you are on the internet. Which your Founding Fathers also didn't know about. And I'm not sure, considering how many socialists and liberals are on the net, that they'd be happy for you to be here, anyway.

[Dolorous Menhir]

Need some joined up thinking here. The US has slashed taxes and spent freely for ten years. A solution needs to involve a reversal of both, not just on the spending side.

[stone monkey]

We have the same brand of crazy here in the UK; the Tories' latest wheeze is to cut the top rate of tax. "We're all in this together" my arse! One wonders if word of the abject failure of trickle down economics has reached their ears, it's only been 20-odd years now. Presumably the Cabinet are pre-emptively lining their own pockets before everything falls to bits.

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 01 August 2011 - 09:22 PM

[Adjutant Stormy~]

I heard if you look into a mirror, late at night, and say

"Ronald Reagan,
Ronald Reagan,
Ronald Reagan"

The Gipper himself shows up to give the wealthy a tax break.

[Obdigore]

Adjutant Stormy, on 02 August 2011 - 04:54 AM, said:

I heard if you look into a mirror, late at night, and say

"Ronald Reagan,
Ronald Reagan,
Ronald Reagan"

The Gipper himself shows up to give the wealthy a tax break.

http://www.cbsnews.c...729-503544.html

@RaRugged, Can you tell me what president presided over the biggest increase in the US government in the last 30 years and doubled our deficit while starting two wars that he didn't include in the 'budget'? Can you tell me why people expect the president to set the budget when it is clearly stated as Congress' responsibility?

The simple fact of the matter is that taxes are currently at the lowest they have been in over 50 years, trickle down economics has obviously not worked, and neither has relying on the wealthy to guide the country towards anything other than increasing their personal net worth.

Also, our founding fathers weren't christian, but a majority of christian politicians claim they were and proceed to say 'our founding fathers hated gays and thought marriage should be between a man and a woman.' Why do we have all these amendments to our constitution if our founding fathers were perfect and always correct?

[Daemonwolf]

http://politicaltick...er-republicans/ Here y'all go. Feel free to read it over, but the bottom line is

Quote

Bottom line: Hensarling was correct in that the annual budget deficit soared in 2009, though it did not increase by twelve-fold as he asserted in his comments. However, he does come close for some years. The 2009 deficit was about nine times the size of the 2002 and 2007 deficits, when Republicanscontrolled the White House and at least one chamber of Congress.

Obama was essentially correct when he said he inherited a budget deficit of $1.3 trillion. Though the budget deficit for 2008 was a then-record $458.6 billion, the CBO issued a projection in January 2009, just days before Obama took office that the budget deficit would reach $1.2 trillion that year, before the cost of any new stimulus plan or other legislation was taken into account.

As for the impact that Obama's first budget would have on the national debt, the CBO estimated the national debt would indeed triple by the year 2019 under the president's budget, from $5.8 trillion to $17.1 trillion. The<br style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font-family: georgia, sans-serif; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.3em; ">president's budget office, the Office of Management and Budget, projected that the national debt would increase to $16.0 trillion by 2019.

When the CBO issued its projections for Obama's budget in June 2009, it projected that the national debt would double to $11.7 trillion by 2019 if its pre-Obama baseline economic assumptions were held steady for 10 years. A more recent CBO baseline projection from this month puts the national debt at $14.3 trillion in 2019 and $15.0 trillion in 2020.

The budget process begins at the first part of each year when the president submits his proposal to Congress, which spends months debating and negotiating toward a final bill. That bill would go into effect on October 1, if it is passed by Congress and signed by the president in time. If that has not happened, Congress can pass continuing resolutions to allow the government to continue using the old budget.

This article is from January 30, 2010: Notice that the CBO places the Debt at $14.3 trillion in 2019, yet we already passed that and just got done with the arguing over it to raise the ceiling. I blame both parties for the BS, however.

This post has been edited by Daemonwolf: 05 August 2011 - 10:23 PM

[Obdigore]

Indeed, both parties are in the wrong, but one seems willing to negotiate to fix things, and the other one wants to stand their ground and claim everything is fine.

[Daemonwolf]

@Obdigore - I think both parties are acting like snivelling douche's at the moment. Also your above posts you mentioned amendments to the constitution, I forgot to mention earlier that I believe its the 13th amendment that was a enacted in the early 1900's that allowed the feds to bypass the 8th amendment (I'm a little tired, so im running from memory here) By passing that amendment the feds were allowed to impose the income tax on the citizens of the US. Just figured I would throw that out there...

[HoosierDaddy]

Daemonwolf, on 05 August 2011 - 11:10 PM, said:

@Obdigore - I think both parties are acting like snivelling douche's at the moment. Also your above posts you mentioned amendments to the constitution, I forgot to mention earlier that I believe its the 13th amendment that was a enacted in the early 1900's that allowed the feds to bypass the 8th amendment (I'm a little tired, so im running from memory here) By passing that amendment the feds were allowed to impose the income tax on the citizens of the US. Just figured I would throw that out there...

13th Amendment abolishes slavery.

The 14th Amendment and the Due Process Clause are the basis for incorporation of the first 10 Amendments protections towards states. The 16th Amendment, applicable in and of itself, allows for the taxation of income by the Federal government.

[Daemonwolf]

HoosierDaddy, on 05 August 2011 - 11:28 PM, said:

Daemonwolf, on 05 August 2011 - 11:10 PM, said:

@Obdigore - I think both parties are acting like snivelling douche's at the moment. Also your above posts you mentioned amendments to the constitution, I forgot to mention earlier that I believe its the 13th amendment that was a enacted in the early 1900's that allowed the feds to bypass the 8th amendment (I'm a little tired, so im running from memory here) By passing that amendment the feds were allowed to impose the income tax on the citizens of the US. Just figured I would throw that out there...

13th Amendment abolishes slavery.

The 14th Amendment and the Due Process Clause are the basis for incorporation of the first 10 Amendments protections towards states. The 16th Amendment, applicable in and of itself, allows for the taxation of income by the Federal government.

Thanks for the catch HoosierDaddy, 16th amendment then is the one that gave the feds the ability to bypass the tax clauses in the constitution so they no longer had to evenly divide them amongst the states, and made them able to directly tax individuals.

[Obdigore]

I'm aware that they added an amendment that gave the federal government the ability to tax citizens directly instead of requiring the states to pay... what is your point in bringing it up?

[worry]

Can we all at least agree that old people and baby boomers are at fault for everything.

[Gatekeeper]

There is no spoon.

[Obdigore]

worrywort, on 06 August 2011 - 05:12 AM, said:

Can we all at least agree that old people and baby boomers are at fault for everything.

Well to be fair, the Social Security system as well as medicare generally only work if the working population is higher than the retired population, which is something those dirty baby boomers are going to screw up because they didn't breed like rabbits as their parents did

Spoiler

That was all tongue in cheek

[Tapper]

To flog the near dead horse that this discussion is, Warren Buffett (taxed 6.9 million last year) says he's more than willing to pay ore, says he should be taxed more, and says he's actually being taxed less than anyone else at his office, percentage wise.


NYT Article

This post has been edited by Tapper: 15 August 2011 - 09:52 AM

[Marcule]

I admit I did not read this thread in its entirety, but everything I did read made me think of this: http://www.fee.org/p...oks/The_Law.pdf I don't agree with everything said in the link, but I do agree with most of it and it presents interesting arguments that I think pertain to this argument. I wouldn't be surprised if most of you have already read it.