Anybody watching the debates?

ThePhranc wrote: Cutting spending to sustainable levels will cut the deficit in our life time. You can do that with out raising taxes. In fact you can do it and lower taxes at the same time and do it even faster.

You just have to be willing to cut off the people that rely on that spending. Do you fire half the military or tell granny that she's not getting her social security money anymore and that her pills are no longer covered?

HiTempguy wrote: Uh, you guys just did... again... for the third time. You WOULD be able to break the deficit, just you WON'T. There is a difference. Cut spending, LIKE MAD.

The problem with drastic cutting is how many existing jobs are connected to current spending, sometimes directly (govt workers) and sometimes indirectly (industries supported by govt projects). I'm not saying we shouldn't cut spending, but cutting enough to make a difference in the deficit would do as much or more harm than good. Hence the need to close loop-holes and even raise taxes some.

ReverendDexter wrote:

ThePhranc wrote: Cutting spending to sustainable levels will cut the deficit in our life time. You can do that with out raising taxes. In fact you can do it and lower taxes at the same time and do it even faster.

You just have to be willing to cut off the people that rely on that spending. Do you fire half the military or tell granny that she's not getting her social security money anymore and that her pills are no longer covered?

There is a lot more spending out there other than SS and military. Even so, the military spending could easily be cut by NOT GOING TO WAR WITH EVERYONE WE DON'T LIKE.

In reply to tuna55:

Thats step one for me, but we need.... Should I say?..

.. A pull-out strategy?

Of course what I said was an oversimplification of things. It was intended to illustrate a point with some quantity of humor inserted.

In reply to ReverendDexter:

We have no sense of humor.

ReverendDexter wrote: Of course what I said was an oversimplification of things. It was intended to illustrate a point with some quantity of humor inserted.

SENSATIONALIST! LIAR! HACK!

Edit- No humor here boss.

And besides that, I really have nothing in this debate, as long as you guys keep buying our oil... in fact, please keep printing money. It makes my life waaaaay easier

I'm in favor of cutting some spending. I'm also in favor of raising some taxes. Spending vs. taxes thing is kind of simple, really. Understand, it's one of those things that's simple, but not easy. But basically, there's stuff people want. That's great. They have to pay for that. Don't want to pay so much? Not a problem. Cut something. I can keep more of my money if I get rid of satellite TV or high speed internet. When I get into trouble is when I want to keep the money and the services.

I honestly believe we've had some intentional misleading on this. More than a few times people have campaigned on some idea that people can keep all the benefits, but pay less too. You can make the case for it all you want, but we can look at the result. We did cut taxes. We didn't cut spending. It didn't work. We don't have to talk about it in theory. We did it. Real world, it didn't work at the levels we're at now.

We have a crisis? Sure we do. One of our own making. But some are using that to say "see, we can't afford these programs that I oppose on philosophical grounds." Well, no. We can't now. But we could before- when we were paying for them. I think we've been led here intentionally to create a situation that makes it possible to kill popular programs that a minority doesn't like.

Snowdoggie wrote:

poopshovel wrote: Great recent example of why some stupid motherberkeleyer who has never had a real job, much less run a business, should not be picking the winners and losers in his "Centrally planned" economy. Nobody wants your berkeleying solar panels!!! Replace "Obama" with "Republican President" and "Solar Panel Company" with "Defense Contractor." MSNBC would have 24 hour coverage of this E36 M3.

The failure of the solar panel company had a lot to do with the fact that China can build them cheaper. In California you are dealing with higher real estate costs, higher living expenses for your employees, higher taxes, more expensive gasoline for your delivery trucks and so on. Most Defense Contractors don't have to deal with Chinese competition.

Right. So why the berkeley would thee Obama push to give them exponentially more money than I'll make in a berkeleying lifetime???

ReverendDexter wrote:

ThePhranc wrote: Cutting spending to sustainable levels will cut the deficit in our life time. You can do that with out raising taxes. In fact you can do it and lower taxes at the same time and do it even faster.

You just have to be willing to cut off the people that rely on that spending. Do you fire half the military or tell granny that she's not getting her social security money anymore and that her pills are no longer covered?

Fire half the military? No. Take the hundreds of thousands of US troops occupying countries that we're not even at war with, and placing them on the US/Mexican border? Yes. Bullets are cheap.

Granny would get her pills/SS. I would not, assuming I'm not a dumb-berkeley and save enough for retirement, which I'm working on. SS should be a safety net. Not a retirement plan. Not the check you use to make the payment on the Bentley.

poopshovel wrote: SS should be a safety net. Not a retirement plan. Not the check you use to make the payment on the Bentley.

But grandma drove a Tempo.

ReverendDexter wrote:

ThePhranc wrote: Cutting spending to sustainable levels will cut the deficit in our life time. You can do that with out raising taxes. In fact you can do it and lower taxes at the same time and do it even faster.

You just have to be willing to cut off the people that rely on that spending. Do you fire half the military or tell granny that she's not getting her social security money anymore and that her pills are no longer covered?

Thank you for the scare tactics. It shows you have no real argument most likely from ignorance on the subject.

If you are actually interested in some solutions let me know, by your intellectually dishonest argumentative fallacies I can assume you are not.

Ian F wrote:

HiTempguy wrote: Uh, you guys just did... again... for the third time. You WOULD be able to break the deficit, just you WON'T. There is a difference. Cut spending, LIKE MAD.

The problem with drastic cutting is how many existing jobs are connected to current spending, sometimes directly (govt workers) and sometimes indirectly (industries supported by govt projects). I'm not saying we shouldn't cut spending, but cutting enough to make a difference in the deficit would do as much or more harm than good. Hence the need to close loop-holes and even raise taxes some.

Maybe its time these career government workers feel some pain the rest of the country does. You can even start with just a salary cut to more sane levels on par with private sector. Also no more paying people not to work would be great, like teachers who do horrible things but are kept on the books for what ever reason. Eliminate fraud waste and abuse in any way possible. You can also get rid of the redundant programmes. Instead of welfare turn it into a workfare system where people do something for those hand outs like picking up trash. I see garbage in the water ways every day that they could be cleaning up. Closing loopholes is good but raising taxes will hurt more than cutting spending. You need money to make money, the more money you take out of the economy the slower it grows. It is easier to get more money into the government by allowing the economy to grow as much as possible and take a small cut than it is to take a big cut and stifle growth. If you really want to tax people tax every one. As it is now just shy of 50% of working Americans pay no federal tax at all. Of that number 50% of those actually get more back than they loan. Stop wealth redistribution.

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. " - B. Franklin.

Just as true today as it was 200+ years ago.

poopshovel wrote: SS should be a safety net. Not a retirement plan. Not the check you use to make the payment on the Bentley.

Hum. That's what you think it should be. That's not what it was when they set it up. Clearly intended to be an old age pension. Is that appropriate today? Maybe not. But that's what it is - not quibbling about "it's not a pension, it's a ponzie scheme." Could be. But the original intent was a pension plan like system. A retirement plan.

Now, as to the second part of your point, I agree. I've said it before- I make enough money to save for my own retirement. Seems silly to me that I'll get a check from the government for the rest of my life when I retire. But that's how it is. But if they change the system to something like that, I assume they'll also reduce or eliminate the payment I make into the plan. So there's no real cost saving.

That's the thing. Social Security is self funded. Operating at a surplus, in fact. And they've been raiding the extra money to pay for other stuff. That's the only problem I see with Social Security. If they eliminate the payments, they eleminate the payroll tax. We don't make any impact at all on the deficit or debt. We can get rid of it, or change it, or whatever. But it won't have any impact on our current economic situation.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

poopshovel wrote: SS should be a safety net. Not a retirement plan. Not the check you use to make the payment on the Bentley.

Hum. That's what you think it should be. That's not what it was when they set it up. Clearly intended to be an old age pension. Is that appropriate today? Maybe not. But that's what it is - not quibbling about "it's not a pension, it's a ponzie scheme." Could be. But the original intent was a pension plan like system. A retirement plan. Now, as to the second part of your point, I agree. I've said it before- I make enough money to save for my own retirement. Seems silly to me that I'll get a check from the government for the rest of my life when I retire. But that's how it is. But if they change the system to something like that, I assume they'll also reduce or eliminate the payment I make into the plan. So there's no real cost saving. That's the thing. Social Security is self funded. Operating at a surplus, in fact. And they've been raiding the extra money to pay for other stuff. That's the only problem I see with Social Security. If they eliminate the payments, they eleminate the payroll tax. We don't make any impact at all on the deficit or debt. We can get rid of it, or change it, or whatever. But it won't have any impact on our current economic situation.

SS was originally optional and for widows and orphans only. Not a retirement plan. It was government charity. Any money you stop the government from taking you leave in the market. The more money in the market the better off the economy is, the more it grows, the more you can get in taxes if you tax at a small %.

Here's something to consider: When did Social Security start?

The Social Security Act was signed by FDR on 8/14/35. Taxes were collected for the first time in January 1937 and the first one-time, lump-sum payments were made that same month. Regular ongoing monthly benefits started in January 1940.

Now, what was the average life expectancy back then? Men: 60.8 years, women: 65.2 years

So guess what ladies and gents, it wasn't designed for us to live to our average age now of about 76 for men and 80 for women. That's why it's going broke- along with theft, etc...

ThePhranc wrote: SS was originally optional and for widows and orphans only. Not a retirement plan. It was government charity.

That isn't my understanding. I believe the original Social Security Act of 1935 provided benefits to retirees 65 and older. It's possible I'm wrong, and if you have some source that I'm not familiar with I'm happy to take a look. Here's a site with some history on SS and how it came to be.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

And the text of the actual bill:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/35actinx.html

SEC. 202. (a) Every qualified individual (as defined in section 210) shall be entitled to receive, with respect to the period beginning on the date he attains the age of sixty-five, or on January 1, 1942, whichever is the later, and ending on the date of his death, an old-age benefit (payable as nearly as practicable in equal monthly installments) as follows: (you can read the rest in the link)

ThePhranc wrote: Any money you stop the government from taking you leave in the market. The more money in the market the better off the economy is, the more it grows, the more you can get in taxes if you tax at a small %.

I understand the idea.

Let's look at it for a minute. There are two extremes- on one end, there are zero taxes, on the other hand 100% taxes. As you approach 100% taxes, there’s little incentive to work or grow your income. So there is no revenue for the government. Similarly, as you approach zero, there is little collected and revenue is very small. This is the basic premise of the Laffer Curve that President Reagan offered as justification for his tax reduction. Realize, the top marginal rate at the time was 70%, and had been as high as 92% in the early 50s. So approaching 100% wasn’t a theoretical condition, we could experience it.

But all the Laffer Curve, or the premise it represents tells us, is that there is a rate at which revenue falls both on the high side and the low side. Okay. But where are we today? The top marginal tax rate is 35% as it has been since 2003. If the economic recovery of the 1980s can be presented as an indication that we had ventured too close to 100%, the economic problems, debt and deficit crisis we face now can be presented as an indication that we are currently too close to zero.

Just stating in absolute terms that tax reductions always result in higher revenue is as counter intuitive as it sounds. Basic logic suggests that is only true to a point. Practical experience would suggest we’re very close, or beyond the point of diminishing returns on the low side. I can’t see how the argument can be used to support a position that taxes are currently too high. There are other arguments that could be made, but not the one you’re making. At best, the only reasonable argument for short term tax reduction is in an effort to get our economy moving at the expense of Federal revenue. I haven’t heard anyone in any position to know better claim that lower taxes would increase government revenue at this point.

cardiacdog wrote: So guess what ladies and gents, it wasn't designed for us to live to our average age now of about 76 for men and 80 for women. That's why it's going broke- along with theft, etc...

I agree it is now something other than it was intended. But, again, "going broke" how? It's not going broke at all. It's self funded. Will it at some point bring in less than it spends? As currently funded, yes it will. But, as has been done many, many times in the past, simply adjusting benefits or revinue can fix that. I'm not at all opposed to raising the retirement age. That's a minor adjustment. No need to put a target on the program. And again, adjusting it, or eliminating it, won't have any impact on our debt or deficit. And there isn't any (or shouldn't be) any money taken out of the economy. It comes in and goes out as benefits that are spent.

Shoot, near as I can tell, it's the only part of our government that is actually paid for. Why is it the target?

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

Problem with the Laffer Curve is it doesn't take into account economic growth and other variables like monetizing debt. It really only deals with a static economic model. Debt and deficit do not say we are to close to zero but that "we" spend way too much. Even if you taxed the top 25% at 100% it wouldn't be enough to pay the debt. We need long term tax reduction and instant spending cuts.

Lower taxes means more money in the economy. More money in the economy means more growth. Even if that money is being saved in banks because those banks lend that money and it is invested back into the economy. Economics really is that simple.

The optimum tax rate is one that only collects enough to run the government. Our government has over stepped its bounds. Return to a Constitutional spending limit and you can cut taxes to almost nothing. That is for the people who actually pay taxes.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

cardiacdog wrote: So guess what ladies and gents, it wasn't designed for us to live to our average age now of about 76 for men and 80 for women. That's why it's going broke- along with theft, etc...

I agree it is now something other than it was intended. But, again, "going broke" how? It's not going broke at all. It's self funded. Will it at some point bring in less than it spends? As currently funded, yes it will. But, as has been done many, many times in the past, simply adjusting benefits or revinue can fix that. I'm not at all opposed to raising the retirement age. That's a minor adjustment. No need to put a target on the program. And again, adjusting it, or eliminating it, won't have any impact on our debt or deficit. And there isn't any (or shouldn't be) any money taken out of the economy. It comes in and goes out as benefits that are spent. Shoot, near as I can tell, it's the only part of our government that is actually paid for. Why is it the target?

If its self funded you couls stop all new payments in and still pay all the payments out. SS simply can not do that. It is not self funded. It is funded by the people not yet born.

I am definitely a supporter of drastic tax changes. Why should the government determine what types of companies get to pay less into the system? Why should the government sanction and set up arbitrary limits for an entire industry.

I would rather let a panel of experts in the field determine the worth and validity of a new product or innovation and allow them to dole out money invested by a private group of individuals who choose to do so, not have the government take a larger percentage of my income and trust them to choose correctly.

When someone mentioned the failure of the solar company earlier, they mentioned competition from China as the leading cause of failure, and that makes me question why the company was formed in the first place if it couldn't compete in the market. If a company can only exist because of tax breaks and government handouts, then it shouldn't exist at all.

ThePhranc wrote: In reply to fast_eddie_72: Lower taxes means more money in the economy. More money in the economy means more growth. Even if that money is being saved in banks because those banks lend that money and it is invested back into the economy. Economics really is that simple.

At what point does reduced taxation stop stimulating the economy? At what point is the revenue created by the economic stimulus less than would be collected at a higher rate? Again, you offer no actual formula, only a broad statement. Can we agree that a tax rate of zero, while maybe optimal for economic growth (theoretically speaking. I'm not suggesting it is) would generate zero revenue for the government? So the optimal rate is >zero. How much? . 5%? 10%? 30%? Do you know?

As I said, I understand the concept. But it really isn't that simple. Logic easily tells us otherwise. There is a point at which that stops working and absent any indication of what that may be, actual experience suggests it's something greater than we currently have.

ThePhranc wrote: If its self funded you couls stop all new payments in and still pay all the payments out. SS simply can not do that. It is not self funded. It is funded by the people not yet born.

If we're arguing semantics, then you win.

Okay. By your definition of self funded, it isn't. But you're not answering my question. By my (and, pretty much everyone else's) definition it is self funded, in that it doesn't spend money that it doesn't take in. So what is the point of your semantic argument? Gotcha? Okay, you got me. But everything else I said stands regardless of your word play. Cutting the spending and income of Social Security wouldn't effect the debt or deficit by your definition of self funded either. So why is it a target?

flountown wrote: If a company can only exist because of tax breaks and government handouts, then it shouldn't exist at all.

Tell that to Exxon.

ThePhranc wrote: The optimum tax rate is one that only collects enough to run the government. Our government has over stepped its bounds. Return to a Constitutional spending limit and you can cut taxes to almost nothing. That is for the people who actually pay taxes.

This is the answer. Right here. And thank you for saying it in so many words. Our government is a government of the people. Optimum tax rate is one that collects enough to run the government. They are not currently collecting enough to run the government. Taxes are too low by your definition.

Ah, but you would like to change things and make government smaller. You're welcome to do so. Run candidates, get them elected, and eliminate the programs. But until you do, taxes are too low. Most Americans like Social Security. The like Medicaid and Medicare too. They like having a military that can defend us. But we're not collecting enough to pay for them. Taxes are too low.

Eliminate then cut. Not the other way around. That's exactly how we got here.