The US Budget Debate - my take on it.

[Andras]

We are not Greece. We can print dollars and have a decent economy. Greece never produced much (aside from olive oil and tourism) and never had any fiscal responsibility at all. They are lazy, indulgent people who think the Germans should work twice as hard as they were last year to get their crap (in Greece) fixed.
The US on the other hand is not quite the basket case the pundits seem to portray it.
We have an ailing (due to housing ills) but huge, vibrant economy. The taxes in the US are lower than ever and business is getting a free ride on most stuff.
The Congress has a built in deficit (expenditure X -(minus) inflow of revenue Y = the difference is the deficit.

You can cut the X all you want but there is a catch. There were implied promises and expectations, money was taken, promises were made - you know Social Security taxes for 30-40-years for some. Medicare for the sick elderly....
Here is the beauty....if (BIG IF) they just do nothing and let the "temporary" tax cuts expire and raise the upper bracket to %40 we should not have this mess we are in...no more frigging debate, no more mud slinging etc. Why the hell not? Either cut all foreign aid (including Israel, or raise the frigging taxes for the rich!) Under Reagan the upper bracket was close to 80%....
They could cut the defense budget and nobody would blink an eye. Leave the shithole Middle East and just quit. Tell them to fend for themselves. Or cut all foreign aid. Or cut MOST of the redundant, wasteful stuff - which is about 90-percent the jerk-off$ in the House and Congress are managing. Will it happen? Unlikely. But it should. This is their (the conservative retards) personal war against Obama, which by the way will backfire, mark my words....
The problem is not the person sitting in the WH, it is the whole frigging corrupt system, the process of DC. That kills and stifles initiatives and makes whores of men, no matter how well intentioned they were when elected. The lawyers and lobbyist scum are the problem and they infect you as soon as you get there.
This is why Ron Paul is never going to see the walls of the WH. Simply put, Jesus would have a hard time reforming that place. We do not have a fiscal problem. We are not governable as we were, democracy died and there is nothing anybody can do about it. Do you think a new president could bring about change?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Andras

Leave the shithole Middle East and just quit.

You could. Your risk is Middle East destabilisation leading to escalating oil prices causing an oil shock to the US which sends it tottering it to its knees, because the US is, well, such a big oil guzzler.

[Brutha]

Or cut all foreign aid.

The US doesn't pay enough money in foreign aid that cutting all foreign aid would significantly change the US budget crisis.

[russianrocket]

THe more you raises taxes for the rich, the more they take their money away from here. What is with people and always wanting to take from the rich and give to the poor. You can take ALL the money from EVERY SINGLE rich person right now, and it would still only be about $800 billion. On top of that, the top 1% ALREADY pay the majority of taxes. How does taxing the rich help us exactly? Please explain this to me, because I must be ignorant to your breath taking logic.

[Andras]

The problem is not the rate - it is the tax-code the loopholes and corporate rate. It is not equal and many pay nothing while screwing and backstabbing the us public citizen who actually pays quite a lot and even buys their *****. If the multi national does not want to pay yet call itself and Amecian company **** them, tax them, if they move out, levy a tax in their import. You would see a balanced budget but all the idiots say , oh no they will ruin the economy. Well it is pretty much ruined, since they have no intention of bringing any jobs back despite the billions they got from the US laxpayers (well china). If they bring some jobs, fine let them stay, otherwise move the hell out. Stop their lobbyist and it will happen!
The problem is not so much with big government but big business as well!!

Originally Posted by russianrocket

THe more you raises taxes for the rich, the more they take their money away from here. What is with people and always wanting to take from the rich and give to the poor. You can take ALL the money from EVERY SINGLE rich person right now, and it would still only be about $800 billion. On top of that, the top 1% ALREADY pay the majority of taxes. How does taxing the rich help us exactly? Please explain this to me, because I must be ignorant to your breath taking logic.

[Andras]

...says who? you? you are in Germany! Please do not tell me, a US taxpayer that we not paying enough. We do not care what you think! If there was a vote, ALL FA would cease to exist overnight! The world's problem is not ours any more, and yes get a decent military to topple Quadaffy, it is quit embarrassing already what NATO is doing there.....we are sick of carrying the world, while the ungrateful SOB's complain....

Originally Posted by Brutha

The US doesn't pay enough money in foreign aid that cutting all foreign aid would significantly change the US budget crisis.

[russianrocket]

First you talk about taxing the rich, and now you change it to taxing corporations. There is a difference between the two statements.

[JSB]

Brutha is right. Foreign aid is a very small fraction of the US budget, around 1 percent.

Originally Posted by Andras

...says who? you? you are in Germany! Please do not tell me, a US taxpayer that we not paying enough. We do not care what you think! If there was a vote, ALL FE would cease to exist overnight! The world's problem is not ours any more, and yes get a decent military to topple Quadaffy, it is quit embarrassing already what NATO is doing there.....we are sick of carrying the world, while the ungrateful SOB's complain....

[Andras]

...bull crap! small things ad up. There is no room for foreign aid when social security is being cut! It is a matter of principle! The tax rate was 80-percent under reagan and we somehow survived. Stop driking the cool aid and do not listen to Rush too much.

Originally Posted by JSB

Brutha is right. Foreign aid is a very small fraction of the US budget, around 1 percent.

[Andras]

that is nitpicking as rich corporation's insiders are rich dudes hiding behind the corporate veil.

Originally Posted by russianrocket

First you talk about taxing the rich, and now you change it to taxing corporations. There is a difference between the two statements.

[Brutha]

..says who? you? you are in Germany! Please do not tell me, a US taxpayer that we not paying enough.

Percentage wise Germany pays more in foreign aid than the US.

The world's problem is not ours any more, and yes get a decent military to topple Quadaffy, it is quit embarrassing already what NATO is doing there....

Libya certainly isn't our problem, we didn't start the war. Germany didn't even vote in favor of having a no-fly-zone over Libya.
We didn't have a problem with Libya nationalizing it's oil industry and reducing corporate profits.

[JSB]

Rush advocates keeping foreign aid as it is a mere 1% of Federal spending, as well as a fraction of what many other countries spend on foreign aid as a percentage of GDP, and also has beneficial returns in terms of international goodwill, influence, and diplomacy? Wow! Learn something new every day!

Originally Posted by Andras

...bull crap! small things ad up. There is no room for foreign aid when social security is being cut! It is a matter of principle! The tax rate was 80-percent under reagan and we somehow survived. Stop driking the cool aid and do not listen to Rush too much.

[JSB]

The US corporate tax rate is already one of the highest in the world. One way to stop so many companies fleeing overseas would be to cut the corporate tax rate to make it internationally competitive; at least that way you'd be keeping corporate tax revenues coming into the US rather than going elsewhere.

Capital gains rates could be raised so they are more in line with income tax rates in order to offset the loss (perhaps increasing capital gains taxes on gains over a certain amount per year, so that billionaires aren't paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries, as Warren Buffet put it).

Originally Posted by Andras

The problem is not the rate - it is the tax-code the loopholes and corporate rate. It is not equal and many pay nothing while screwing and backstabbing the us public citizen who actually pays quite a lot and even buys their *****. If the multi national does not want to pay yet call itself and Amecian company **** them, tax them, if they move out, levy a tax in their import. You would see a balanced budget but all the idiots say , oh no they will ruin the economy. Well it is pretty much ruined, since they have no intention of bringing any jobs back despite the billions they got from the US laxpayers (well china). If they bring some jobs, fine let them stay, otherwise move the hell out. Stop their lobbyist and it will happen!
The problem is not so much with big government but big business as well!!

[Curtis2011]

Originally Posted by Andras

This is their (the conservative retards) personal war against Obama

This is where you lost me. Any statement like this is more than just biased. It is biased to the point of losing track of reality.

There are good people on both sides of the party lines, and also bad people.

Also, I'll leave you with a quote:

Originally Posted by Senator Barack Obama in 2006

Raising the debt limit is a sign of leadership failure

This was Obama's view of George W. Bush and the Republicans raising the debt limit in 2006. But now that Obama is President, suddenly raising the debt limit is the opposite of what he once believed.

In my view, it's all just politics. Many people on both sides want to use every event to gain as many votes as possible. Many politicians on both sides seem to only care about getting re-elected, not about fixing the economy.

Originally Posted by JSB

The US corporate tax rate is already one of the highest in the world. One way to stop so many companies fleeing overseas would be to cut the corporate tax rate to make it internationally competitive; at least that way you'd be keeping corporate tax revenues coming into the US rather than going elsewhere.

Capital gains rates could be raised so they are more in line with income tax rates in order to offset the loss (perhaps increasing capital gains taxes on gains over a certain amount per year, so that billionaires aren't paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries, as Warren Buffet put it).

I agree with the first paragraph. Lower taxes can indeed raise the total revenue amount that is generated, by attracting more business in the first place. There is an economic theory called the Laffer Curve that predicts this phenomenon.

As for the second paragraph, I haven't seen hard data about it, but I've read that every time the capital gains tax is lowered in America, it actually results in higher total tax revenue gained from the tax. The implied explanation was that with a lower tax rate, people are more willing to sell their stocks+bonds+other capital, thus resulting in more transactions that are taxed (since capital gains tax is only usually paid when the capital is sold, not when it first accumulates a gain).

[Brutha]

There is an economic theory called the Laffer Curve that predicts this phenomenon.

If you look at the Wikipedia article it says that the phenomen occurs if you have a tax rate of over 65% or 70%.
The US tax rate isn't even near that number, especially when you look at the effective tax rate.

This was Obama's view of George W. Bush and the Republicans raising the debt limit in 2006. But now that Obama is President, suddenly raising the debt limit is the opposite of what he once believed.

No, Obama argues that the state should increase it's debt when the economy is down and decrease it when it goes up.
Especially in retrospect 2006 seems to have been a good economic year where the state should have lowered it's debt.

[Andras]

It is not Omaba's job to create a fiscal balance, it is bestowed upon Congress.
It may appear that I am bias but I consider myself a spiritual person, in tune with the masses, and I cannot shut up to hypocrisy and vile conduct from the rabid right in the US (they call Obama socialist, communist, a muslim) - so I call them MORONS, am I bias, you bet'cha. If they cannot take it, they should shut up their rhetoric.

[JSB]

I think Brutha is right in that the Laffer curve doesn't apply so much here as US tax rates are already comparatively low. Currently, many companies have an incentive to leave the US and move overseas where tax rates are lower. My suggestion to reduce the corporate tax rate to a competitive level was in order to keep companies in the US.

My only point with raising capital gains was to offset the revenue lost from reducing corporate income tax rates. Currently, corporate profits are taxed and then dividends passed on to shareholders who then pay capital gains taxes on the dividends. The idea is to reduce taxes on the front end to keep the companies here, and raise them on the back end to offset the front-end reduction. Share holders may complain about increased taxes on dividends, but since corporate taxes have been reduced, gross dividends would actually be larger, meaning that shareholders should end up netting about the same amount as they do now.

Originally Posted by Curtis2011

I agree with the first paragraph. Lower taxes can indeed raise the total revenue amount that is generated, by attracting more business in the first place. There is an economic theory called the Laffer Curve that predicts this phenomenon.

As for the second paragraph, I haven't seen hard data about it, but I've read that every time the capital gains tax is lowered in America, it actually results in higher total tax revenue gained from the tax. The implied explanation was that with a lower tax rate, people are more willing to sell their stocks+bonds+other capital, thus resulting in more transactions that are taxed (since capital gains tax is only usually paid when the capital is sold, not when it first accumulates a gain).

[JSB]

I don't think the right or the left is composed of morons, but I do think that today in the US, the right wing extremists are more vocal, more extreme, and more fanatic than the left wing extremists.

The far left wingers certainly exist, but they don't have the same influence or publicity as the far right wingers, and frighteningly, many of the influential extremists today on the right seem unwilling to accept any scientific or empirical evidence that contradicts their preexisting dogma.

Originally Posted by Andras

It is not Omaba's job to create a fiscal balance, it is bestowed upon Congress.
It may appear that I am bias but I consider myself a spiritual person, in tune with the masses, and I cannot shut up to hypocrisy and vile conduct from the rabid right in the US (they call Obama socialist, communist, a muslim) - so I call them MORONS, am I bias, you bet'cha. If they cannot take it, they should shut up their rhetoric.

[Andras]

If you consider that certain US based multi's (namely oil companies and insurance and reinsurance companies) have the whole might and bidding of the USA military to "arrange" things around the Globe to their benefit, the current "high rate" of taxes are a bargain. Nothing happens around the globe for "democracy" but most certainly a lot happens for the benefit of the multi's.
Read the book http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/1576753018

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Andras

...bull crap! small things ad up.

Add up to 1% approximately.

That won't even cover your interest payments to China.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Andras

If there was a vote, ALL FA would cease to exist overnight!

And 99% of your problem would still exist.

[Andras]

When you steal $1 dollar from a casino... You are fired...
...so, why I ask you to give ANYTHING to nations akin to Pakistan or Israel? when we have retirees, veterans without heath-care, money and assistance. Crying out-loud we have homeless Iraqi vets and we give billions to scumbag countries that betray us?

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Add up to 1% approximately.

That won't even cover your interest payments to China.

[Acting Like Godot]

Actually I am not saying that you should give foreign aid.

I am saying that even if you didn't, you only save 1% and therefore 99% of your problem remains.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Andras

and we give billions to scumbag countries that betray us?

That is nothing. You borrow USD 900,000,000,000 from China alone.

[Andras]

I know that. But there is no silver bullet but most things should be approached in principle. IS it a good thing? Is it in the benefit of the greater public? I do not claim that I will solve all the problems. I want to right, wrongs.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Actually I am not saying that you should give foreign aid.

I am saying that even if you didn't, you only save 1% and therefore 99% of your problem remains.

[scorpio1980]

The answer isn't to tax, it is to quit spending so much damn money.

Cut the corporate tax, and you will all of a sudden see jobs coming back from over seas.

Let's start drilling at home, instead of helping Brazil drill their reserves which we in turn will buy from them.

Cut Regulations, and let people start businesses without a bunch of fees, taxes, and paper work.

Implement a fair tax, and shut down the IRS.

Close the military bases around the world, stop the wars, bring the troops home and let them protect our borders instead. Cut the military budget by 75%.

Shut down the department of education. Get government out of education, and let students pay for college if they decide to go. This will lower the cost of college, because right now college costs so much because the government pays for so much of it. If students actually had to work to pay for college less students would be going meaning they would have no choice but to lower costs.

Legalize marijuana, and you create a vast array of jobs. You also save government money by not keeping these people locked in jail.

Cut the welfare system in half. Don't give people life long food stamps unless they are really disabled.

Give us the option of opting out of the failed social security, and medicare system. I will invest the money more wisely than the government could.

Legalize the use of other currencies beside the dollar. Let the best currency win.

There are so many things we could do, but taxing people isn't a very smart or ethical one. People should be able to keep their money that they worked for.

[Acting Like Godot]

There are many possible solutions. All have their pros and cons. It's a delicate balancing exercise. For example:

Originally Posted by scorpio1980

Cut the corporate tax, and you will all of a sudden see jobs coming back from over seas.

Cut the corporate tax, and you will immediately have greater difficulties funding your social security, your healthcare, your public infrastructure such as roads, airports, seaports etc.

Let's start drilling at home, instead of helping Brazil drill their reserves which we in turn will buy from them.

If you trust in capitalism .... Chevron would already have worked out which is the more economical approach.

The less economical approach leads to higher oil costs ... for you. Because the cost will be passed down to the end-consumer.

Naturally, higher oil costs also hurt those parts of corporate America that use a lot of oil. Such as airlines.

Cut Regulations, and let people start businesses without a bunch of fees, taxes, and paper work.

Regulations exist for a purpose. For example, without regulations, property developers might construct cheaper buildings with poorer safety standards; banks may come up with new types of toxic products etc etc.

Implement a fair tax, and shut down the IRS.

If you shut down the IRS, there would be nobody left to implement a fair tax.

Close the military bases around the world, stop the wars, bring the troops home and let them protect our borders instead. Cut the military budget by 75%.

Shrinking the military creates a new horde of unemployed ex-soldiers.

Shut down the department of education. Get government out of education, and let students pay for college if they decide to go. This will lower the cost of college, because right now college costs so much because the government pays for so much of it. If students actually had to work to pay for college less students would be going meaning they would have no choice but to lower costs.

Also leads to a less-educated population, over time.

Legalize marijuana, and you create a vast array of jobs. You also save government money by not keeping these people locked in jail.

Mmmm, no comment.

Cut the welfare system in half. Don't give people life long food stamps unless they are really disabled.

Results in more people starving to death.

Give us the option of opting out of the failed social security, and medicare system. I will invest the money more wisely than the government could.

Allowing opt-outs means higher costs for those who opt in.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Andras

Crying out-loud we have homeless Iraqi vets

Furthermore, to create them, you had to spend 2 point something trillion dollars. (That's the estimate of the direct and indirect costs of your 2003 Iraq war).

[scorpio1980]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

There are many possible solutions. All have their pros and cons. It's a delicate balancing exercise. For example:



Cut the corporate tax, and you will immediately have greater difficulties funding your social security, your healthcare, your public infrastructure such as roads, airports, seaports etc.



If you trust in capitalism .... Chevron would already have worked out which is the more economical approach.

The less economical approach leads to higher oil costs ... for you. Because the cost will be passed down to the end-consumer.

Naturally, higher oil costs also hurt those parts of corporate America that use a lot of oil. Such as airlines.



Regulations exist for a purpose. For example, without regulations, property developers might construct cheaper buildings with poorer safety standards; banks may come up with new types of toxic products etc etc.



If you shut down the IRS, there would be nobody left to implement a fair tax.



Shrinking the military creates a new horde of unemployed ex-soldiers.



Also leads to a less-educated population, over time.



Mmmm, no comment.



Results in more people starving to death.



Allowing opt-outs means higher costs for those who opt in.

I disagree with all these. Nothing else to say about that.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Andras

Simply put, Jesus would have a hard time reforming that place.

This was my favorite line. Which government was it that Jesus reformed?