...if you're opposed to tax increases. According to the Washington Post, spending increases only account for 15% of the current deficit. The rest all came from a lousy economy and cutting taxes on the rich.
It didn't have to be this way. Had we persued our fiscal policies from just 10 years ago, we'd now be sitting on a 2 trillion dollar surplus and be debt free as a nation. Instead, we're up shit's creek.
The current debt is approx. $14 TRILION. Are you saying that there was an additional $16 Trillion or $1.6 Trillion per year for 10 straight years in tax revenue that we missed? I want you to bust out the calculator and think about how much money needs to be generated to create $16 Trillion in tax revenue before you answer.
-- Modified on 6/6/2011 2:54:10 PM
But, for some reason it's not very popular with Republicans in Congress. So, not only are they against increased revenue through taxes, they're against collecting what is due. Hmmm! Very, very curious.
Different source. Same basic story!
for every $1.00 invested in the IRS through increased staffing, the IRS will return to the Federal Govt $6.66, thereby helping to reduce the federal deficit.
Now, if you really really think about it, we have to spend this money because the work performed is labor intensive. Add the fact that a portion of the infrastructure and technology is antiquated, outdated 1970s vintage, and we have a tax code that is so complex, so difficult, so arcane, that we have no alternative but to spend the money.
In the govt employee mind there is no alternative. You gotta love govt rationale.
difficult and arcane, what would you have them seek as an alternative, other than not pursuing revenues due the government? 
it doesn't define the term "enforcement programs". What does that mean? What does it require? Are there alternatives? Can you take a small portion of $600M, and upgrade your systems to identify and track the targeted audience? Can you redeploy any of your existing employees? They employ over 100,000.
This wouldn't fly in the private sector, but it does in the govt sector. But logic is not a prerequisite in govt. So I guess we have to spend the money.
Given the horror stories I've heard about government agencies, their computers systems, and how the manage them; I'm particularly thinking about the Social Security Administration, what they do to try and save money, usually ends up costing much more. As you say, in the private sector, no company can afford to do that which in inefficient and ineffective.
I guess you didn't bother to read the news article I linked from the Washington Post.
Of course, if you bothered to read once in a while, you'd know the difference between the deficit and the debt.
I did not read the article but I did read your post where you say we will be a "debt free" nation.
Just read the article, they have busted it out for you. You may not agree though but who cares whether you agree or not.
-- Modified on 6/6/2011 2:54:10 PM
"We're not in debt because of how much I spend. You don't make enough money to keep up with my spending."
I would suggest you get your eyes checked. There is not a "trophy" among that group.
You have to grade it on a curve. They are from New Jersey.
Here is my problem with even whispering about tax increases right now.
I have ZERO faith that the revenue generated from tax increases will actually be used to balance the budget or pay down our debt. ZILCH, NONE, ZIP, NADA, no confidence whatsoever.
Congress has proven time, and time, and time again that they are utterly incapable of reducing their spending addiction. So WHY Willy, should we keep throwing good money after bad? I'm not talking about Democrats, or Republicans. Both parties are guilty as sin about spending more and more and more and more money no matter what the voters tell them, no matter who gets voted into or out of power.
It doesn't matter who is in charge, whether its a D or an R. It doesn't matter what's on the table, or who is negotiating. At the end of the day, the American Taxpayer gets fucked with no courtesy reach around, and no lube.
Look at the asinine debate over the budget. We came within hours of a shutdown, and what do we have to show for it? Spending cuts that total less than 1/10 of 1% of the budget.
Willy, you are like Lucy with the football. You actually think the Democrats are going to balance the budget if they could only just raise taxes an eensy bitty bit on the richest people. The problem is, Obama has called for those same tax increases to pay for half a dozen different proposals. In the minds of Democrats, any income generated by increasing taxes is already spent six different ways.
Under no circumstances am I going to support ANY increase in taxes until I've seen REAL budget reduction. I seriously cannot comprehend the gullibility of liberals who keep falling for the same rhetoric time and again. If it is going to take a mixture of spending cuts and tax increases to balance the budget, so be it. But Congress has to show us the money first. Show us some real spending cuts and budget restraint, then we can talk tax increases. Not before.
Seems like this actually has happened before. A guy named Clinton raised taxes on the top brackets, balanced the budget, produced several surpluses and paid down several hundred billion of the national debt. Memory sure is short.
just because Clinton is a Democrat. They are all spend thrifts you know. Have you ever come across so many people who are in denial and will not accept truth.
Just like trying to give credit to Bush for killing OBL. Can't accept that either. Many times, many people have called Democrats sheep, I wonder who is really the sheep herd here?
Clinton's balanced budget was all smoke and mirrors. Doing some REAL research will let you see that. It was NEVER balanced in reality. Check on the 'Peace Dividend', and what happened to that. I'm too tired to post any links, if you're interested, just google.
No Inicky, Clinton did not pay down the debt. The last president to actually pay down the debt was President Eisenhower. Our debt has increased every single year since then, including during Clinton's years.
As for the surplus, it was a projected surplus only, used SS funds to balance the books, and made a ton of rosey assumptions about future revenues in order to achieve even the appearance of a projected surplus.
Furthermore, a guy named Clinton was president at the time, but it was a political party named Republicans who had control of Congress, and shoved a budget down Clinton's throat whether he liked it or not that cut spending.
Regardless of whether my memory is short or long, its accurate. Contract with America ring a bell? An actual gov't shutdown as opposed to the window dressing and posturing we saw a weeks ago ring a bell? Republicans held their ground on spending cuts, and pulled the trigger on a gov't shutdown when Clinton wouldn't budge. Eventually of course, a compromise was reached. If Republicans had gotten 100% of the spending cuts they wanted, we would have had a REAL balanced budget, not just a shell game on paper only.
I do concede though, that Clinton's final two budget are as close as we've come in nearly 5 decades to fiscal solvency. The problem though, is that Obama.....IS NOT......Clinton. THIS Congress, and THIS president, just passed a budget that is $1.6 TRILLION in deficit, and after all the posturing over another gov't shutdown, the best they could do was trim a few measly million out of the budget. Cuts that amounted to less than 0.10% of the total budget. That is beyond pathetic.
So we come full circle to my original point - THIS Congress, THIS president - have done NOTHING, in fact they've done LESS than nothing to earn anyone's trust that they can or will actually reduce spending and balance the budget.
Always the same crap. Clinton increased taxes, balanced the budget and had near full employment. I know, you are going to say, that was the dot com boom. Well, people who had money started up companies.
Tax cut for the rich and starting two wars did all that in. Lax financial regulation by cronies, who should never have been appointed and two wars by borrowing money finished it off.
Where were all the republicans when Bush & Co was raking up debt and budget was in a tail spin. Really, Republicans have no credibility whatsoever when it comes fiscal responsibility. Just eat your sound bites and be satisfied.
Besides, Republicans are experts in taking good money and making it all bad. Really, you guys shouldn't be even speaking budget deficits at all.
YOU DIDN'T READ THE ARTICLE EITHER. If you did and be honest about it, you would have known who, what and when the shit hit the fan.
I DON'T TRUST GTHE GOVERNMENT IS ANOTHER WORN OUT CLICHE. It is your government, why don't you trust them?
Who wrote and balanced the budget? It was the Republican controlled House and Senate. They had to shut down the government to twist Clinton's arm to sign it. He vetoed cutting welfare twice before having to sign it or lose reelection. He was FORCED to allow Congress to balance the budget and cut spending. SPOLILER ALERT- The Federal Government is not a one-man-show. Where are 98% of these companies now that were generating all this revenue? (remember epets??) Bill Gates deserves more credit than him. Oh that's right, Clinton raised taxes and everything magically worked out. It's that simple That's why Europe is doing so well.
I posted this before but it's worth repeating: If we confiscated ALL the wealth from every Billionaire and Millionaire in this country it wouldn't even pay for the 2011 deficit. That is every friggen penny!!. So how is raising taxes on their earnings a few points going to put us in the black?
President Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress added $FOUR TRILLION in debt in a little over two years and fought like dogs to limit any kind of budget cuts recently. Democrats can not take the high ground with this argument.
If you had actually carefully read Willy's post, and the article, you would know he didn't actually say the budget could be balanced with tax increases alone. What he did say was simply that it couldn't be balanced with NO tax increases. This has been the Democrats' basic principle all along, though you seem to have missed it.
As for Clinton, isn't it remarkable how Republicans give him no credit for balancing the budget, but blame for everything that went wrong. "It was on his watch," they say. Well, so was the balanced budget.
Of course, when it's Dubya, he can't be blamed for blowing balanced budgets out of the water with wars and tax cuts for the rich. And it wasn't his fault Bin Laden wasn't captured in eight years. And the recession on his watch wasn't really his; he inherited it from Clinton. But, of course, this recession is Obama's and Obama's alone. So if it's a Republican Prez he can't be blamed for anything bad that happens on his watch but gets lots of credit for things he had nothing to do with.
You guys are the definition of the words "Double Standard."
As I stated earlier, your party is not interested in any kind of spending cuts. Republicans try to cut it by about two percent (which is total bullshit) and Democrats made the starving babies and grandma argument to get it down to $38 billion or roughly 1% They called it "Draconian". Willy said the article states that only 15% of the deficit is due to over spending. The only argument I'm hearing from the Dems is tax baby tax. Nobody is going to take that seriously until they offer significant spending cuts as well.
I will say this- If (and its a big if) the Republicans take control of both Congress and the Presidency in 2012 and they offer a bullshit 2-3% budget reduction when they are in charge I will NEVER vote Republican again.
First of all you're distorting the Dems position. They do want to cut spending, just not as much as the Republicans. They are on the record with that, though you seemingly choose to disbelieve it. As for taxes, Republicans' David Stockman (Saint Reagan's Budget Director) and Alan Simpson (former conservative Republican Senator) both say the budget cannot be balanced on spending cuts alone and that taxes on top earners must rise. The non partisan CBO agrees.
No, I choose not to believe the Democrats are interested in cutting spending (not so sure of the Republicans either) because we just witnessed it a few months ago. They won't even cut 2% without digging in. I will never believe it with Reid/Pelosi in leadership. How the hell do they keep Pelosi their leader after the biggest House drubbing in history?
*seriously banging my head on my keyboard*
What do you mean Bush can't be blamed??? Did you sleep through the the 2006 and 2008 elections? Why do you think the GOP got their asses handed to them? Conservatives like myself got so fed up with the spending, we voted to fire the people we had voted into office. I voted Democrat in 2004 and again in 2006. Yes, the Iraq war also played a big part in why the GOP lost Congress in 2006, but spending was also a huge factor.
And if you want to talk about selective reading skills, did you read what I just wrote? Realistically, I have no doubt that to pay down our debt we will need to raise taxes. But we are talking about a President that spent $2 TRILLION in his first 6 months in office. A president that just lost $14 billion bailing out a company that is now foreign owned, and is building plants in Mexico as we speak - while he is doing a victory lap over the deal. We are talking about a President who just "compromised" on a budget deal that trimmed a little over $100 million from a budget that is $1.6 trillion in deficit - only for us to learn that in actuality, the cuts only amount to around $38 Million (yes, that is an M).
And you are shocked that anyone is skeptical that THIS President, and THIS Congress has no intention or ability to actually cut the budget?
So all I'm saying is - THIS congress and THIS president needs to put up or shut up. Start trimming the fat, and get us into the ballpark of a balanced budget. THEN we can talk tax increases. Enough shell games, enough promises. I don't know about you, but I"m sick of being lied to by elephants and jackasses alike.
Banging it on the keyboard. And now you will probably point out I shouldn't take you literally and have distorted your words. Guess what? You do it too, like by asking if I slept through various elections re criticism of Bush. Let me clarify. On THIS BOARD there is a claque of righties who will not accept any criticim of Bush and leap to give him credit for things he didn't do, while piling on Obama. It is those people I was referring to. I thought it was obvious, but apparantly not. Your concession on taxes is interesting (and, among the righties on this board, unique) and I give you credit for it. I'm not sure what exactly you wrote that you don't think I read; this post or an earlier one?
As for "$14 Billion lost" I'm not sure where you got that number, but at this point any number is premature. In fact, FIAT just bought back more US stock in Chrysler and will certainly buy back more.
As for the budget cuts, the entire effort has been so politicized that I don't think either side has any credibility. And, as I said, Dems didn't have much as budget cutters anyway.
-- Modified on 6/7/2011 8:46:38 AM
Truth just happens to be exactly the opposite.
You're at the store and you've got a lot of things to buy. In one hand you've got cold hard cash. You can feel it. You can count it.
In the other hand you have a credit card that you can use, but you don't have to pay it back. Which do you use?
People are more frugal with the money they have over the money they theoretically have. Raising taxes would naturally have the effect of lowering spending.
Wow Willy, there just aren't words for your logic. I use the term "logic" loosely of course.
In my reply to Inicky, I included a link to our debt over the past 50 years. Go have a look at it. Since 1957 - almost 50 years now - our debt has increased every single year. It has been nearly half a century since we paid down our debt by even a single penny.
Our current Congress and President just passed a bill that is 1.6 trillion in deficit. For a single year.
And you honestly think raising taxes will suddenly inspire a frugality in them that is utterly non-existent at the moment.
Truly astounding.
if that is the limit of your undertsanding. It's about bringing money into the treasury. Only an elementary student would simplyify it to take from the rich.
JFK knew to cut taxes to increase revenues to the treasury? Are you saying he was stupid?
...that's why he raised EFFECTIVE tax rates on the rich. Don't worry, one day that right wing talking point will work. 