| Name: |
water_watcher
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
If you EVER doubted if we have a spending problem,
|
|
Date:
|
12/8/2011 6:38:21 PM
|
watch this. See what it takes to pay off 1 year of Obamas budget deficit. Not the whole deficit ... just 1 year.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=JY8LKII_MNA&feature=youtube_gdata_player
URL: Obama's deficit paid for
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
If you EVER doubted if we have a spending problem,
|
|
Date:
|
12/8/2011 6:57:25 PM
|
We have spending issues, but we also have revenue issues.
|
| Name: |
MrHodja
-
|
|
| Subject: |
If you EVER doubted if we have a spending problem,
|
|
Date:
|
12/8/2011 7:59:03 PM
|
Solve the first and the second will take care of itself.
|
| Name: |
4691
-
|
|
| Subject: |
If you EVER doubted if we have a spending problem,
|
|
Date:
|
12/8/2011 8:42:32 PM
|
Very depressing exercise. Spending must be controlled...deep cuts...eliminate where possible...almost everything should be reduced at least some. Of course conservatives agree with this; except when their sacred cows are at risk. Toss in the politics of the two parties and it seems almost impossible that the changes that are necessary will be made in time. My concern is that even if the Republicans win in 2012 it will only slow the downward spiral caused by out of control spending. Instead of overspending $10B a day maybe it will be cut to $5B.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
If you EVER doubted if we have a spending problem,
|
|
Date:
|
12/8/2011 9:20:38 PM
|
Maybe we do ... but this is pretty clear that you can take 100% of all the income of the fortune 500 and 100% of all the income of those making over $250K and it does not make a dent ... we need huge spending cuts ... then we can start to talk about how much more revenue we need.
I saw a cut cartoon recently ... it was Oblamer making a speech and the voice cloud said ... I am not going to solve the deficit on the backs of the 51% that pay no federal taxes, when the other 49% are not paying their fair share.
Rings true ... I have to say those 51% are the real greedy and selfish ones ... they want more entitlements and keep saying someone else pay. ALL working people need to pay some federal taxes.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
If you EVER doubted if we have a spending problem,
|
|
Date:
|
12/8/2011 9:22:42 PM
|
it is a start. What would you do if your household budget was not in balance? Demand more from your employer or cut your spending?
|
| Name: |
4691
-
|
|
| Subject: |
If you EVER doubted if we have a spending problem,
|
|
Date:
|
12/8/2011 9:36:43 PM
|
Exactly...those of us employed have to cut our personal spending to stay on budget and avoid bankruptcy . It is certainly possible that the government could do the same.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
If you EVER doubted if we have a spending problem,
|
|
Date:
|
12/9/2011 7:54:43 AM
|
It seems to me that if you overspend your household budget, you definitely cut spending but you might also need to find a higher paying job (more revenue).
I don't think you can depend on Conservatives spending much less; they just spend it on different things.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
If you EVER doubted if we have a spending problem,
|
|
Date:
|
12/9/2011 8:14:17 AM
|
But when that higher paying job is not possible or realistic ... your cut the spending. The same is true today ... we are on the brink of collapsing under the debt ... raising taxes, slowing the economy further, making capital tighter does not fix the spending problem. At best it is short term revenue, but then longer term decline.
Hound ... it is true that reducing taxes, creating incentives have increased revenues through growth in the economy. Increasing taxes has always had the opposite effect. Why would we think higher taxes on business or select individuals would have a positive or stimulative effect?
As for conservative spending less ... I think history has shown that. We have NeVeR run deficits like we have today and are forecast in to the future. I will grant you that we had too high of spending even when Obama took office ... but today I think we would love to see us return to those levels.
We need a zero based approach to spending ... cut to the bone ... then look at taxes. But we need a new tax structure, simplier and eVeRYONe paying in. This class warefare and only certain segments paying is nuts. All people need to pay for the government they want. It can not be more entitlements and social programs ... but let someone else pay. That is a path to complete socialism and the end of our country as we know it ... as well as the eventual collapse since we know socialism has NeVeR worked.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
That doesn't square with history
|
|
Date:
|
12/9/2011 8:30:34 AM
|
Hound, I will stipulate that the GOP lost their way and be it compassionate conservatism or whatever they spent too much during the time they controlled the House and Senate. But to say they won't spend much less is just not consistent with what we have seen with the modern-day Democrat party. Obama's spending (not including what the Democrat-controlled Congress did in Bush's last two years) is more than double what Bush did in his eight years in office. And one could argue that Dems and Obama at a minimum deserve partial credit for at least $800B of Bush's deficit spending.
I suspect that if we get GOP control of the WH, Senate and House that at least for a while we will see meaningful spending reductions. Whether they eventually lose their way is anyone's guess but history favors them doing so at some point. But more importantly, they will implement policies that will promote business activity and that will do more for revenue growth than any change to the tax laws. The former has always worked......the latter has never worked and never will.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
That doesn't square with history
|
|
Date:
|
12/9/2011 9:32:09 AM
|
I have no problem with the adjustment of tax rates for businesses. And I have no problem with the concept of everyone paying taxes. But, as convoluted as our tax code is, I have no problem with people making in excess of a million dollars a year paying a bit more. They do in most other countries -- which is why so many of them claim residency in the US.
I would love to see our tax code streamlined and simplified. Most people have absolutely no idea what is in the tax code, and most wealthy people can afford to hire a tax accountant or atty to make sure they take advantage of every possible loophole and deduction. So if they lose a few loopholes and deductions, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. I'm talking about personal income, not business income.
Sorry MM, I'm not ready to crown conservative heads with the halos of fiscal responsibility. For example, it is two Conservative Senators that have created a caucus to save the F-35. There are many, many technological, strategical and cost reasons why we should not continue pouring money into the F-35. And it is Conservative Senators that have inserted money into the Defense budget to fund Ge to produce the alternative engine that is not needed or desired by the DoD.
And what about Senator Shelby as one of the top ear-markers and pork barrelers in Congress? What about all those earmarks for airports that no one uses, roads to no where, etc? I don't think you can say that Conservatives never go there. In fact, I think Conservatives go there most often.
What I am really in favor of is term limits. Until we get term limits, I think the idea that one party is more responsible than the other is just an illusion.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
That doesn't square with history
|
|
Date:
|
12/9/2011 9:37:27 AM
|
As I said in my response the GOP definitely lost their way but it is also a fact that we have seen what Dems will do when they have total control and even the GOP in its most profligate way doesn't even come close. The numbers don't lie and to ignore the numbers is to be willingly wrong.
And there are a goodly number of GOP members that send the wrong message with their earmarks and big government ways. But to say they as a group aren't much different than Dems just doesn't match reality.
And I am all for simplifying the tax code and broadening the tax base.
|
| Name: |
4691
-
|
|
| Subject: |
That doesn't square with history
|
|
Date:
|
12/9/2011 10:04:08 AM
|
I allowed myself to be optimistic after the Paul Ryan budget plan was released with over $4B in cuts. I even became excited when Tom Coburn presented the idea that it really is necessary to cut more like $9B over the next 10 years. Federal revenue exceeds $2B per year and yet an additional $1B is spent on credit. So it would make sense that maybe even $10B should be cut over the next 10 years to stay wthin revenue (round numbers). But the super committee could not even agree to cut $1B over 10 years. And when the automatic cuts came into play (mostly only decreases in the planned future spending increase); BOTH sides started whinning about the pain that would result from cutting Federal spending by a meager 3 Cents on the $1.
|
| Name: |
4691
-
|
|
| Subject: |
That doesn't square with history
|
|
Date:
|
12/9/2011 10:07:11 AM
|
Sorry, I was living in a fantasy spending world I guess, please replace the B for billions with T for trillions in my previous post.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
That doesn't square with history
|
|
Date:
|
12/9/2011 12:14:16 PM
|
A billion here....a trillion there......its all round off errors to that crowd. :-)
As for the super-committee it was an abrogation of their legislative duties and was designed to fail. It was a stupid idea from the beginning and should never have been created. Just look at the composition on each. Deficit/spending hawks from the GOP and big government tax and spend types from the Dem side. Compromise was doomed from the outset.
Until we elect a President, Senate and House that are controlled by true fiscal conservatives we will only see incremental improvement. Its up to the electorate to do what they say they allegedly want to happen.
|
| Name: |
4691
-
|
|
| Subject: |
2012
|
|
Date:
|
12/9/2011 1:56:46 PM
|
I agree with those that believe that the 2012 elections will be the most important vote in our life time.
|
| Name: |
Zman
-
|
|
| Subject: |
2012
|
|
Date:
|
12/9/2011 9:48:23 PM
|
Don't you mean in our and our children's and their children's lifetimes?
Just wonderin'
|
| Name: |
buzzbuster
-
|
|
| Subject: |
That doesn't square with history
|
|
Date:
|
12/9/2011 10:41:12 PM
|
Cutting Billions is a start to Trillions. It amazes me when I hear people say millions or billions don't touch the problem with the deficit as high as it has become and the present occuppier of the white house wants to spend more (alot more) if he has his way. Every dollar we can cut needs to be cut and waste eliminated. I know this has been said before but saying it is not getting it done. We need to get Obama out!!!!!! Help us and our next few generations get out of this mess.
|
| Name: |
4691
-
|
|
| Subject: |
2012
|
|
Date:
|
12/10/2011 7:59:47 AM
|
I think if Obama is re-elected it will be worse than if Carter had been. With $16T debt and growing I think the fiscal stability of our country is on the line. That certainly gives great importance for our children and future generations.
|
|
New Post
Search
Off-Topic Forum
Reply
»
Alabama Lakes
»
Lake Martin
Login
|
Home
