Look Like Everyone Is Getting "Well" Except Us

[Guest]

Here's a link to an article from today's Wall Street Journal reporting that the corporate tax rate is the lowest that it's been in 40 years--about half of what it was when the U.S. economy was enjoying some of it's most vibrant growth years.

Tax Break Pushes Corporate Taxes to Just 12.1% of Profits, Lowest Level in 40 Years - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204662204577199492233215330.html?m od=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection)

So the corporations seem to be doing fine. The wealthiest Americans are paying the lowest tax rates in decades. And we all know that going on 60% of all Americans are paying no income tax at all!

The standard mantra against raising the taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations is that "taxing the job creators will be bad for the economy". But like the 30-second ad on MSNBC asks--tax rates are at their lowest, so where are the jobs?

I'll make two observations...
Keeping revenues paid to the government at the lowest rate in decades is as much a reason for our annual deficits and the growth of our national debt as spending.

And, it looks to me like the lobbyists hired to protect the interests of the rich and the corporations are being quite effective.
What about us???

[Guest]

How refreshing. More real, fundamental facts.

How can the tea party and other Republican fiscal conservatives ignore this?

Or is it as McConnell and Gingrich have said. That they would rather see the President (and his proposals to remedy this) "fail".

[Guest]

Here's a link to an article from today's Wall Street Journal reporting that the corporate tax rate is the lowest that it's been in 40 years--about half of what it was when the U.S. economy was enjoying some of it's most vibrant growth years.

Tax Break Pushes Corporate Taxes to Just 12.1% of Profits, Lowest Level in 40 Years - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204662204577199492233215330.html?m od=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection)

So the corporations seem to be doing fine. The wealthiest Americans are paying the lowest tax rates in decades. And we all know that going on 60% of all Americans are paying no income tax at all!

The standard mantra against raising the taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations is that "taxing the job creators will be bad for the economy". But like the 30-second ad on MSNBC asks--tax rates are at their lowest, so where are the jobs?

I'll make two observations...
Keeping revenues paid to the government at the lowest rate in decades is as much a reason for our annual deficits and the growth of our national debt as spending.

And, it looks to me like the lobbyists hired to protect the interests of the rich and the corporations are being quite effective.
What about us???


Thank you for this.....

[Guest]

Well said!

[Guest]

VK, you have to be a subscriber to read the article. I'm not as wealthy as you, I can't afford the subscription. lol

[Guest]

VK, you have to be a subscriber to read the article. I'm not as wealthy as you, I can't afford the subscription. lolSorry, BK. I didn't realize that WSJ articles required a subscription.

The bottom line of the article is...
Corporate tax receipts as a share of profits are at their lowest level in at least 40 years.

Total corporate federal taxes paid fell to 12.1% of profits in 2011 according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Corporate tax receipts are at the lowest level since 1972, less than half the 25.6% companies paid on average from 1987 to 2008.

As the result, the CBO raised its projection for the government's 2012 budget deficit from $973 billion to close to $1.2 trillion, in part because of low corporate tax receipts.
But the GOP continues to say that the U.S. has some of the highest business tax rates among all the developed counties and needs even further cuts to business taxes. They don't point out that after the myriad of tax breaks available to U.S. companies as the result of the efforts of a variety of lobbyists, companies don't actually pay anywhere close to the published corporate income tax rate. And this at the same time that the House of Representatives, currently controlled by that same political party, has made no move whatsoever to cut government spending and actually begin to move towards a balanced federal budget.

[Guest]

thanks VK.....just wondering where are the naysayers...oh yea still on the Georgia thing.

[Guest]

thanks VK.....just wondering where are the naysayers...oh yea still on the Georgia thing.According to Alternet there are 37 giant corporations paying $0 taxes and according to the Huffington Post 46% of American tax payers also pay $0 in taxes. Both of these organizations are definitely liberal leaning. I won't try to give you an analysis of this because you probably would accept it right or wrong because it wouldn't fit into... ah, let's just say you wouldn't believe me!

So as to the "what about us" question. What makes you think that most of us, right or left on this forum don't fall into that "what about us" category? We're not the big corporations; most if not all of us are not the rich who can take advantage of loop holes that can result in $0 taxes and we're not the poor that live on government entitlement handouts and don't have to contribute a nickel to support those entitlement hand outs like we do.

So it sounds to me like most or all of us are in the same boat... and that's why you're not seeing most of us so-called naysayers. :ohdear:

[Guest]

It's a travesty that small business owners, the backbone of the nation and jobs, are lumped together WITH the largest corporations whenever there is talk about "the rich" "not paying their fair share". Never do democrats make a distinction between guys like Buffet and the small businessman, owner/operator.

[Guest]

It's a travesty that small business owners, the backbone of the nation and jobs, are lumped together WITH the largest corporations whenever there is talk about "the rich" "not paying their fair share". Never do democrats make a distinction between guys like Buffet and the small businessman, owner/operator.My guess is that if an analysis of taxes paid by small business owners were separated out from the larger corporations in the country, it would make the argument for broad-based tax reform even more compelling.

A few things included in what "broad based tax reform" means to me is...
Eliminate all the special deductions and federal programs that permit many, many large companies to escape paying any federal taxes whatsoever.

Maybe reduce the corporate income tax rates, but assure that all corporations pay that rate in income taxes. (This might be a good place to install a business flat tax or a VAT tax.)

Reduce the tax rates for small business owners (if they're not already incorporated) to the same rate schedule as larger companies. Such rates would likely be lower than the personal income tax rates they pay now.

Tax U.S. corporations on profits they make outside the U.S. Some companies might leave the U.S. altogether, but most would find it more economical, given the new taxes on foreign earnings, to invest and create jobs here in the U.S.

Assure that all employed Americans pay some amount of income tax. To have a tax code with so many loopholes, programs and minimums that permit over half the people emplopyed in the U.S. from paying any taxes whatsoefer is ridiculous!

[Guest]

How refreshing. More real, fundamental facts.

How can the tea party and other Republican fiscal conservatives ignore this?

Or is it as McConnell and Gingrich have said. That they would rather see the President (and his proposals to remedy this) "fail".

They can ignore it easily because you can't see the light of day if you have your head up you ass!

[Guest]

My guess is that if an analysis of taxes paid by small business owners were separated out from the larger corporations in the country, it would make the argument for broad-based tax reform even more compelling.

A few things included in what "broad based tax reform" means to me is...
Eliminate all the special deductions and federal programs that permit many, many large companies to escape paying any federal taxes whatsoever.

Maybe reduce the corporate income tax rates, but assure that all corporations pay that rate in income taxes. (This might be a good place to install a business flat tax or a VAT tax.)

Reduce the tax rates for small business owners (if they're not already incorporated) to the same rate schedule as larger companies. Such rates would likely be lower than the personal income tax rates they pay now.

Tax U.S. corporations on profits they make outside the U.S. Some companies might leave the U.S. altogether, but most would find it more economical, given the new taxes on foreign earnings, to invest and create jobs here in the U.S.

Assure that all employed Americans pay some amount of income tax. To have a tax code with so many loopholes, programs and minimums that permit over half the people emplopyed in the U.S. from paying any taxes whatsoefer is ridiculous!


Darn that pesky little pledge that more than half of Congress, and more than a few Senators, signed vowing to the American People that they would not raise taxes, or cut deductions without reciprocal tax cuts to offset them dollar for dollar. Imagine!!; Congressmen keeping their word; darn them all.

Why don't the Democrat Congressmen just come out and say, "I'm trying to raise your taxes, but the Republicans won't let me"; instead we hear about "tax reform", and compromise. "Compromise" meaning, Republicans allow taxes to be raised.

It did wonders for the first President Bush to break his pledge, didn't it?

All the Republican candidates for President have signed this pledge. Wait; only John Huntsman didn't. I wonder why he was never able to gain any traction?

[Guest]

Darn that pesky little pledge that more than half of Congress, and more than a few Senators, signed vowing to the American People that they would not raise taxes, or cut deductions without reciprocal tax cuts to offset them dollar for dollar. Imagine!!; Congressmen keeping their word; darn them all.

Why don't the Democrat Congressmen just come out and say, "I'm trying to raise your taxes, but the Republicans won't let me"; instead we hear about "tax reform", and compromise. "Compromise" meaning, Republicans allow taxes to be raised.

It did wonders for the first President Bush to break his pledge, didn't it?

All the Republican candidates for President have signed this pledge. Wait; only John Huntsman didn't. I wonder why he was never able to gain any traction?Richie, the ultimate solution to our fiscal problem will require massive cuts to federal spending, including big changes to the entitlement programs we all think we're entitled to, as well as pretty signifiant increases in tax revenues. The arithmetic simply doesn't work any other way. I'll again suggest that you actually do the arithmetic and see for yourself. The only real question at the end of the road is who is going to pay the increased taxes?

[Guest]

Richie, the ultimate solution to our fiscal problem will require massive cuts to federal spending, including big changes to the entitlement programs we all think we're entitled to, as well as pretty signifiant increases in tax revenues. The arithmetic simply doesn't work any other way. I'll again suggest that you actually do the arithmetic and see for yourself. The only real question at the end of the road is who is going to pay the increased taxes?

There are tons of spending cuts that can be made, and more than a couple of "more trouble than they're worth" government agencies that can be eliminated, with their budgets, before we need to talk about "tax reform", or "revenue enhancements" or whatever you want to call tax increases, at this moment.

I would demand these spending cuts and agency elimination if I were in Congress before I would even entertain any discussion of tax increases; although I wouldn't be persuaded with talk. Real definite definable permanent cuts and "top down" elimination of government agencies and departments.

Then, you may talk to me about tax increases. (but don't get your hopes up)

[Guest]

Richie: Would you care to offer some of the areas in which you'd cut?

I mean, we all have our pet projects that we like - and our "hit list" of stuff we'd like to get rid of. But unless you hit the BIG guys (Defense, Social Security, Medicare) as well as the little guys (Foreign Aid, Amtrak, etc), you're just not going to get enough blood out of the stone.

Personally, I think cuts to the Big Guys are more palatable if *everyone* is getting cut. *Shared* sacrifice is something that should be able to pass more easily than a bill which would provide so much noise along the lines of "How come (fill in the blank) is getting a free pass?"

[Guest]

Richie: Would you care to offer some of the areas in which you'd cut?

I mean, we all have our pet projects that we like - and our "hit list" of stuff we'd like to get rid of. But unless you hit the BIG guys (Defense, Social Security, Medicare) as well as the little guys (Foreign Aid, Amtrak, etc), you're just not going to get enough blood out of the stone.

Personally, I think cuts to the Big Guys are more palatable if *everyone* is getting cut. *Shared* sacrifice is something that should be able to pass more easily than a bill which would provide so much noise along the lines of "How come (fill in the blank) is getting a free pass?"

No, I won't do that because that would transform this thread into a spitting contest about the "importance" of whatever agency or department. You know what I'm talking about and you can probably come up with 3 to 6 major government agencies that can be disbanded yourself.

Also there's untold billions of dollars wasted every years in ventures that don't help the nation as a whole. Do I have to enumerate all of those for you too? I know you can come up with maybe more that I can.

This is only about the liberals determination to make Republicans break their "no additional taxes" pledge. It's not about what's good for our country, it's about political advantage.

[Guest]

Richie: I think you're right AND wrong.

Democrats gaming the system for political advantage? No question. It's all a game to BOTH parties inside the Beltway.

But I think you're wrong in thinkink that the goal is to make the Republican break their No Taxes pledge. I think the goal, if I were to put on my Sinister Black Hat, would be to say "Ok, fine - what do you cut?" and when the republicans finally DO come up with something it falls into one of two categories: 1) It's not nearly enough (you just can't get the cash from discretionary spending) or 2) You're cutting vital services and starving people (with some added bluster for good measure). With #2, you get the people all riled up and they come out with torches and pitchforks at the next election.

The problem with the Republicans is that pledge - it offers no room for compromise - something which the so-called patron saint of the current GOP, Ronald Reagan, was a master at.

So here they want to emulate Reagan without being allowed half the tools in Reagan's playbook. IMO, they've allowed themselves to be painted into a corner.

And, just for the record, please remember that I voted for Reagan as many times as I was legally allowed. He was the first President I ever voted for (as I turned 18 in 1980).

Of course, if you want to start a separate topic for where we'll "get" the trillion dollars to close the deficit, I'm more than ready to hear what you have to say. Someone posted a long list quite some time ago that added up to next to nothing because it didn't hit the Big Three in the budget (well, there's really a Big Four, but you can't just eliminate the interest on the public debt).

[Guest]

Richie: I think you're right AND wrong.

Democrats gaming the system for political advantage? No question. It's all a game to BOTH parties inside the Beltway.

But I think you're wrong in thinkink that the goal is to make the Republican break their No Taxes pledge. I think the goal, if I were to put on my Sinister Black Hat, would be to say "Ok, fine - what do you cut?" and when the republicans finally DO come up with something it falls into one of two categories: 1) It's not nearly enough (you just can't get the cash from discretionary spending) or 2) You're cutting vital services and starving people (with some added bluster for good measure). With #2, you get the people all riled up and they come out with torches and pitchforks at the next election.

The problem with the Republicans is that pledge - it offers no room for compromise - something which the so-called patron saint of the current GOP, Ronald Reagan, was a master at.

So here they want to emulate Reagan without being allowed half the tools in Reagan's playbook. IMO, they've allowed themselves to be painted into a corner.

And, just for the record, please remember that I voted for Reagan as many times as I was legally allowed. He was the first President I ever voted for (as I turned 18 in 1980).

Of course, if you want to start a separate topic for where we'll "get" the trillion dollars to close the deficit, I'm more than ready to hear what you have to say. Someone posted a long list quite some time ago that added up to next to nothing because it didn't hit the Big Three in the budget (well, there's really a Big Four, but you can't just eliminate the interest on the public debt).

Compromise is but another word for "agreeing to higher taxes". Simple as that.

The Democrats always start talking about cuts to services that would hurt the most vulnerable Americans as a political ploy, as if those are the first things that could be cut. It's total garbage.

There are hundreds of billions of dollars of waste, and if you put in fraud, probably trillions.

[Guest]

...I would demand these spending cuts and agency elimination if I were in Congress before I would even entertain any discussion of tax increases; although I wouldn't be persuaded with talk. Real definite definable permanent cuts and "top down" elimination of government agencies and departments....I agree. Or at least they should be done concurrently. To the extent that Congress has never been able to actually achieve spending cuts while increasing taxes is because they wrote lousy law. Putting the words on paper that would require tax increases to be contingent on spending cuts isn't all that complicated. Any halfway decent lawyer could put those words on paper...probably on only a handful of pieces of paper.

The reason that it's never been accomplished before is that Congress doesn't want to actually cut spending. And that goes for both parties. They've both been in power when taxes were increased based on spending cuts which never happened. Politicians of both stripes love it when they get more money to spend and don't have to explain to anyone why their favorite government program was cut or eliminated.

[Guest]

...There are hundreds of billions of dollars of waste, and if you put in fraud, probably trillions."Hundreds of billions" doesn't even get you close to balancing the budget. "Maybe trillions"? Now you're talking. At current levels of revenue and spending, we'd have to cut something like a trillion and a half in spending just to balance the budget for a year. (None of this "we'll save $ X billion over ten years" we now see so often from Washington.)

So now the $64,000 question, Richie. Tell us all how we come up with a combination of $1,500,000,000,000 in spending cuts and/or tax increases? Just be general for us...round it off to the nearest $100 billion.

I for one will be waiting for your thoughts.

[Guest]

"Hundreds of billions" doesn't even get you close to balancing the budget. "Maybe trillions"? Now you're talking. At current levels of revenue and spending, we'd have to cut something like a trillion and a half in spending just to balance the budget for a year. (None of this "we'll save $ X billion over ten years" we now see so often from Washington.)

So now the $64,000 question, Richie. Tell us all how we come up with a combination of $1,500,000,000,000 in spending cuts and/or tax increases? Just be general for us...round it off to the nearest $100 billion.

I for one will be waiting for your thoughts.

I don't have the entire federal budget in my hands, but I know enough that there plenty of room for cuts. I could say practically the whole of foreign aid, for one, should be cut, and then defenders of the aid will yell. I could say eliminate the Dept. Of Energy, the Dept. Of Education, The Environmental Protection Agency, etc. etc. and then get caught up in the defenders of all that.

I don't really care where the cuts come from, but I know they can be done.

Here's a list of government agencies. I think we can probably cut 75% of them if we wanted to.

A-Z Index of U.S. Government Departments and Agencies (A) | USA.gov (http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/index.shtml)

[Guest]

I don't have the entire federal budget in my hands, but I know enough that there plenty of room for cuts. I could say practically the whole of foreign aid, for one, should be cut, and then defenders of the aid will yell. I could say eliminate the Dept. Of Energy, the Dept. Of Education, The Environmental Protection Agency, etc. etc. and then get caught up in the defenders of all that.

I don't really care where the cuts come from, but I know they can be done.

Here's a list of government agencies. I think we can probably cut 75% of them if we wanted to.

A-Z Index of U.S. Government Departments and Agencies (A) | USA.gov (http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/index.shtml)The fact that you continue to refuse to do the arithmetic of balancing the budget and beginning to pay down the national debt doesn't surprise me, Richie. You continue to want to simply repeat the soundbites and platitudes that can't come close to balancing the federal budget.

Here, I'll help you out. You've provided a listing of federal agencies saying "we can probably cut 75% of them if we want to". You could cut the entire list of agencies, cut all of the entire federal government as we know it--including the entire Defense Department, Homeland Security, the national parks, NASA, all aid to education, medical research, the State Department, the air traffic controllers, the FCC, the FDA, the interstate highways, Amtrak, Fannie and Freddie, the IRS, the federal court system, all the money spent to pay Congress, the Treasury Department, everything...and we would still come up with an annual budget deficit of about $525 billion.

OK, so how do we actually balance the budget? Well, there's another $2 trillion or so that's spent on entitlement programs. So after we totally eliminated the entirety of the federal government, we'd still have to cut the cost of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid by about 25% in order to balance the 2011 budget. That or do a few less spending cuts and increase taxes to reduce the deficit.

So go ahead, Richie, keep prattling away on how easy it would be to balance the budget, how all those spending cuts are simply low-hanging fruit waiting to be picked. Keep refusing to do the arithmetic. But don't be surprised when some of our creditors, probably China, do it for us. Ask the Greeks how they're getting along with their major creditors.

And by the way, Richie, that foreign aid that you want to get rid of altogether...it amounts to a little more than $25 billion per year. That's about 6/10% of the 2011 federal budget. And guess where it goes? 80% of our foreign aid payments go to Israel!!

[Guest]

The fact that you continue to refuse to do the arithmetic of balancing the budget and beginning to pay down the national debt doesn't surprise me, Richie. I used to do the annual budget for our little 10 person enforcement unit at the NYS Dept. of Motor Vehicles that I managed back in the early 1980's. It would take me anywhere from 2 to 3 day to complete the calculations, estimates and documents needed.

Fast forward to today and the statement you made above. How could you ever expect any one person to do what you are pressing Ritchie for when it takes literally thousands to accomplish a budget on the magnitude of the federal government? That would be totally senseless to think one person could do that! A person would also have to be crazy out of his mind to even think they could begin to pull off something that huge and complex by themselves. In Hawaii they would probably say that it would take a whole lot of Kahunas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahuna) to pull it off! :1rotfl:

[Guest]

The fact that you continue to refuse to do the arithmetic of balancing the budget and beginning to pay down the national debt doesn't surprise me, Richie. You continue to want to simply repeat the soundbites and platitudes that can't come close to balancing the federal budget.

Here, I'll help you out. You've provided a listing of federal agencies saying "we can probably cut 75% of them if we want to". You could cut the entire list of agencies, cut all of the entire federal government as we know it--including the entire Defense Department, Homeland Security, the national parks, NASA, all aid to education, medical research, the State Department, the air traffic controllers, the FCC, the FDA, the interstate highways, Amtrak, Fannie and Freddie, the IRS, the federal court system, all the money spent to pay Congress, the Treasury Department, everything...and we would still come up with an annual budget deficit of about $525 billion.

OK, so how do we actually balance the budget? Well, there's another $2 trillion or so that's spent on entitlement programs. So after we totally eliminated the entirety of the federal government, we'd still have to cut the cost of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid by about 25% in order to balance the 2011 budget. That or do a few less spending cuts and increase taxes to reduce the deficit.

So go ahead, Richie, keep prattling away on how easy it would be to balance the budget, how all those spending cuts are simply low-hanging fruit waiting to be picked. Keep refusing to do the arithmetic. But don't be surprised when some of our creditors, probably China, do it for us. Ask the Greeks how they're getting along with their major creditors.

And by the way, Richie, that foreign aid that you want to get rid of altogether...it amounts to a little more than $25 billion per year. That's about 6/10% of the 2011 federal budget.

I never said it was easy, but it was spending that got us to this point, RIGHT!!

It's only LOGIC that tells me that cutting that spending is the way to go and not to bleed the people anymore and hamstring business anymore.

We can't spend ourselves into prosperity.

"prattling?"; K.M.A.

[Guest]

Richie, I'll help you out here. For one, I would start by gathering up every federal study done on fraud and waste. But even to start with that might be a bit daunting.

Tell you what - a little Googling found this:

Fraud and Abuse in Federal Programs | Downsizing the Federal Government (http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/fraud-and-abuse)

It's from the CATO Institute. While I might not agree with their politics (if I remember them correctly and I might not), anti-fraud measures should be something we ALL agree on.

[Guest]

Richie, I'll help you out here. For one, I would start by gathering up every federal study done on fraud and waste. But even to start with that might be a bit daunting.

Tell you what - a little Googling found this:

Fraud and Abuse in Federal Programs | Downsizing the Federal Government (http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/fraud-and-abuse)

It's from the CATO Institute. While I might not agree with their politics (if I remember them correctly and I might not), anti-fraud measures should be something we ALL agree on.

I don't have to do that. My principles are correct and enumerating all the individual cuts that can be done is pointless.

Spending put us into this mess. Logic tell us what to do to correct that.

[Guest]

Richie, How about we cut it all from Social Security & Medicare? That should get widespread support. :a040:

[Guest]

Richie, How about we cut it all from Social Security & Medicare? That should get widespread support. :a040:

Like I said before; liberals will first point to spending cuts that will hurt the greatest number of the most vulnerable Americans in order to try to make a point.

Thank you so much for the wonderful illustration. Your contribution in validating my position is priceless.

[Guest]

Like I said before; liberals will first point to spending cuts that will hurt the greatest number of the most vulnerable Americans in order to try to make a point.

Thank you so much for the wonderful illustration. Your contribution in validating my position is priceless.

Always pleased to help ya out. :icon_wink:

[Guest]

Richie, I'll help you out here. For one, I would start by gathering up every federal study done on fraud and waste. But even to start with that might be a bit daunting.

Tell you what - a little Googling found this:

Fraud and Abuse in Federal Programs | Downsizing the Federal Government (http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/fraud-and-abuse)

It's from the CATO Institute. While I might not agree with their politics (if I remember them correctly and I might not), anti-fraud measures should be something we ALL agree on.Good article, djp.

The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane, who remains president and CEO, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries, Inc., the second largest privately held company by revenue in the United States. Koch and his brother are huge contributors to the most conservative causes and candidates.

So what does Cato say about waste and fraud? They estimate the amount of "improper payments" among all the varioius government programs to total about $100 billion per year. That amounts to 2.8% of federal spending.

Whoops! We better keep looking, Richie. We're not going to balance the budget by just eliminating waste and fraud. Looks like we'll have to cut stuff that affects all of our lives, including the entitlements that somehow have escaped the scrutiny of our feckless Congress.


Richie, How about we cut it all from Social Security & Medicare? That should get widespread support. :a040:Yeah, Dale. Richie says the government should stay out of our lives, that everyone should take care of themselves. So that would be a good idea...eliminate Social Security and Medicare. Richie says that the government can't run programs like that anyway. And hey, if you cut just those two programs the budget would be balanced. Voila!

[Guest]

Richie, How about we cut it all from Social Security & Medicare? That should get widespread support. :a040:
Yeah, Dale. Richie says the government should stay out of our lives, that everyone should take care of themselves. So that would be a good idea...eliminate Social Security and Medicare. Richie says that the government can't run programs like that anyway. And hey, if you cut just those two programs the budget would be balanced. Voila!It's all too obvious that you, Dale and other like minded people like to falsely spin things out of context to try and minimize and discredit positions expressed by those on the right. I and probably most views from the right do NOT advocate the elimination of Social Security and Medicare and your spinning will NOT mask the fact that we think that spending should be controlled and not subject to bastardization of the distributions of those supposedly dedicated funds to the non-contributors that were never intended to receive a free handout when those programs began. :ohdear:

[Guest]

SkyGuy writes: "It's all too obvious that you, Dale and other like minded people like to falsely spin things out of context to try and minimize and discredit positions expressed by those on the right. I and probably most views from the right do NOT advocate the elimination of Social Security and Medicare and your spinning will NOT mask the fact that we think that spending should be controlled and not subject to bastardization of the distributions of those supposedly dedicated funds to the non-contributors that were never intended to receive a free handout when those programs began."

In other words, I want my lifetime Social Security benefits (more than I ever paid into the program) and lifetime Medicare benefits (both started from Democrat Presidents) but do not give any government assistance to needy people. Let them live in a refrigerator carton under a bridge and eat from a dumpster.

[Guest]

There's no sense firing shots back and forth. Both the farthest conservative right-wingers as well as the progressive left have points to make here regarding the budget deficit.

In my judgement what it boils down to is that the budget cannot be balanced very quickly. In order not to have significant negative effects on the U.S. economy and unemployment, the spending cuts have to be done over a period of time, regularly but probably over a ten-year period. Passing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution would be a good idea, but place it's full enactment far enough out in the future that massive spending cuts wouldn't tip us into another great depression. What's important about that is that's five elections for the House, one and a half for the Senate and two Presidents. They all have to be invested completely in such a plan, regardless of their political party.

OK then, how do we balance the budget? I'll throw out the following ideas which over a ten-year period would get us close, I think.


Cut "discretionary" spending by about one-third. The easist way to think of this is that discretionary spending are all those things that we think of when we say "federal government".

Cut Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid by about one-third. This can be done a number of different ways, that's what the Congress will spend all their time arguing about. "Cutting the spending" could be everything from aggressive means testing to determine who should recieve these benefits, a significant increase in both the premiums as well as the co-pays and raising the deductibles significantly. The prescription drug program needs a massive overhaul and permitting people to purchase drugs from aywhere in the world would instill some market discipline on drug company pricing. These entitlement programs should be a safety net, NOT a way for Americans to retire comfortably and get unlimited lifetime healthcare. Much of the cost of these services must be shifted to the individual consumers.

Cut the defense budget by abouit half. We won't be fighting any wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, so those annual savings would be a big part of the cuts. But on top of that, our military needs to be sized and equipped to fight the kinds of future wars we might encounter in the future--less aircraft carriers and submarines, less tanks, less military scattered all around the world in places that clearly they are no longer necessary, less fighters and bombers, less development of these kinds of weapons, more drones, more investment in fighting cyber-warfare, more special forces, more "right sizing" and "right equipping" of our military. Cutting the Defense budget by half will take both a meat cleaver as well as a scalpel.

Increase tax revenues by about 25%. If the Bush tax cuts were simply permitted to expire, that would accomplish a big chunk of that. But in addition, the tax system should undergo a complete overhaul. It's not unreasonable to think that tax revenues can be increased by 25%, while at the same time tax rates can be reduced for those contributing more to the economy and society and tax "breaks" eliminated from both individuals and companies that don't need them.
So there you go. These cuts will effect every single American, some much more than others. But these are the kinds of things that will have to be done if we expect to align our spending with available tax revenues.

[Guest]

SkyGuy writes: "It's all too obvious that you, Dale and other like minded people like to falsely spin things out of context to try and minimize and discredit positions expressed by those on the right. I and probably most views from the right do NOT advocate the elimination of Social Security and Medicare and your spinning will NOT mask the fact that we think that spending should be controlled and not subject to bastardization of the distributions of those supposedly dedicated funds to the non-contributors that were never intended to receive a free handout when those programs began."

In other words, I want my lifetime Social Security benefits (more than I ever paid into the program) and lifetime Medicare benefits (both started from Democrat Presidents) but do not give any government assistance to needy people. Let them live in a refrigerator carton under a bridge and eat from a dumpster.In other words? No! Don't put words into my mouth. I'll gag on the intentional spin put into them.

Social Security was not intended to give assistance to people in the way you are misleading people to believe. IMO your words were solely designed to discredit me! SS was intended to provide assistance to the elderly, their spouses & children in the event of their early death and contributors that become disabled.

To fully understand the intent of SS you would have to learn the history and evolution of social insurance from the time America was English Colonies up to the present time, and you can do that at Social Security Online (http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html) if you really care to know the real truth.

I'm not going into a discussion on what's at that site partially because I couldn't possible do justice to the information it describes and because those on the left probably wouldn't believe me anyway no matter how true it is. But I will give you this excerpt from it that pretty much sums up the intention from when Roosevelt did sign it into law:

"Social insurance, as conceived by President Roosevelt, would address the permanent problem of economic security for the elderly by creating a work-related, contributory system in which workers would provide for their own future economic security through taxes paid while employed. Thus it was an alternative both to reliance on welfare and to radical changes in our capitalist system. In the context of its time, it can be seen as a moderately conservative, yet activist, response to the challenges of the Depression."

In the future I'm going to be more selective on what I reply to. I don't have the time or energy to deal with messages designed with a purpose like this one was! Why I'm even surprised that you didn't suggest that I wanted to bring back the hobos!

[Guest]

Richie, How about we cut it all from Social Security & Medicare? That should get widespread support. :a040:

Sounds good to me, especially get rid of Social Security! Medicare can be replaced by private insurance.

And Isreal is not the 51st State and fend for itself.

[Guest]

There's no sense firing shots back and forth. Both the farthest conservative right-wingers as well as the progressive left have points to make here regarding the budget deficit.

Have you looked at Rick Santorum's plan at all?

SANTORUM RELEASES "MADE IN AMERICA" PLAN TO REVITALIZE THE US ECONOMY | Rick Santorum for President (http://www.ricksantorum.com/pressrelease/santorum-releases-made-america-plan-revitalize-us-economy)

[Guest]

Have you looked at Rick Santorum's plan at all?

SANTORUM RELEASES "MADE IN AMERICA" PLAN TO REVITALIZE THE US ECONOMY | Rick Santorum for President (http://www.ricksantorum.com/pressrelease/santorum-releases-made-america-plan-revitalize-us-economy)

Cannot argue with any of this :boxing2:

[Guest]

Budget never lie but people do. Like SkyGuy and as a manager for over 26 years for a large Department in a large corporation, I had to prepare a budget every year and make revisions to them at least two times during that year.

In order to prepare a budget you need to write out your plans and programs first. You need to include a rationale as to the what where why and how. You understand that if you miscalculate that you will have to live wth that mistake. So the natural tendency is to add redundancy to the budget. Your are then faced with the unpredictable (changes in market, a catastrophe, etc). Your budget then is incorporated into the coroprate budget so politics enters into your thinking....You get the picture.

The government is not a business and they don't think like businessmen. Further they are using an inexhaustible supply of funds (aka/taxes). and if they miss or misapprproiate they can't get fired. Now add to that mix the fact that lobbyist keep waving money under their noses and organization arrange quid pro quo arrangements and you can see why the budget is not worth the papers (thousand upon thousand of pages, And since there is no one hold politician feet ot the fire the misuse and fraud of these programs goes undetected since there are no built in conrols.

So I laugh everytime a politicians says he/she will.......... because they won't or can't do squat.

Referring back to the brief budgeting procees above there is step actually needed before writing plans and programs. You must ask yourself why is Item A in this budget (its purpose) and is that purpose still viable i.e. beneficial and profitable,

If you think politicians will bother with any of this I own a bridge in Brooklyn.........................

[Guest]

Have you looked at Rick Santorum's plan at all?

SANTORUM RELEASES "MADE IN AMERICA" PLAN TO REVITALIZE THE US ECONOMY | Rick Santorum for President (http://www.ricksantorum.com/pressrelease/santorum-releases-made-america-plan-revitalize-us-economy)

This plan is excellent and it's understandable.

Unfortunately, 98% of the democrats I know do not vote based on clearly articulated substance like that. They vote straight party line, and on the "charismatic" personality, and they say that's what's important to them.