I’m not saying it’s sufficient, I’m saying it’s essential. It’s a giant hole in the boat. It might not fix the boat completely, but at least it will stop it from taking on water.
No, it won’t, as has been demonstrated.
Regards,
Shodan
Nobody’s advocating raisng taxes, just getting rid of the irresponsible giveways to the parasitic overclass. Spending cuts won’t do shit (except for cutting out the bullshit “war on terror”). The problem is lack of revenue. Why are right wingers always so consumed with anxiety and worry that billionaires might have to pay the same tax rate they paid under Reagan? I don’t understand that.
Actually, the opposite has been demonstrated, but thank you for playing.
Not the person you asked, but I am a federal employee in much the same situation. I have no official management or supervisory duties whatsoever. I can’t even approve somebody taking off 2 hours to see a doctor.
However, by dint of length of service (and sheer brilliance, of course) I am the leader of a small team, and part of my annual job review is based on the work of the team as a whole. Sort of comes with the job when you are understaffed. In part because we have been level funded for six years, and one manager left and was not replaced so their duties were given to other people.
Certainly you realize that when negotiating, the position of “do the part that takes money from you first, then I promise to do the part that takes money from me” is a non-starter, right?
The only way we make any progress is by incremental steps on both sides of the ledger, for political reasons if nothing else.
And, IMO, the tendency for both sides to claim that spending cuts and tax increases, respectively, are off the table is unhelpful. That’s why Obama coming out for a spending cut (not for the first time, I might add), no matter how small, is at least indicative that there is one grown-up at the table. Now we’ll see which GOP member is willing to step up and call for compromise on the revenue side.
The water coming in the boat to which you refer is from over the top spending by congress. They have proven to be unable to control themselves, so why should the taxpayers provide them with even more money to burn.
Let’s see them significantly cut spending first.
No, it’s from the lack of tax revenue. This alleged “out of control spending” by congress is just teabagger mythology. Your concern for parasitic billionaires is very moving, though.
Every word of the above is false, including “and” and “the”, and therefore not worth the bother of reposting everything that shows up your worthless drivel.
That’s not the position.
Spending cuts, as we agree, are going to have to be most of the solution. This is reality. Reality is non-negotiable.
Obama has already broken his promise not to raise taxes on the “non-rich”. So how about the spending cuts that are needed?
Regards,
Shodan
Your class envy is showing.
The checkbook gets taken away before they get any additional $$
What are the first extensive spending cuts you propose?
Maybe a top 5, to start the ball rolling.
I’m pretty sure I could list several, but I doubt my list would match up with yours.
Which of us is right?
When you list them, please identify any you feel will not meet significant opposition, or why that opposition is not as worthy or respect and sympathy as the opposition to any potential cuts.
Also, what areas - if any - do you believe should be relatively safe from extensive cuts?
Raise taxes later after “all the cuts” are made?
Not even after “some significant” cuts, but only after “all”?
Is this a meaningful statement?
How will we determine that we have reached that point?
The economy is total crap, why the fuck are we giving a shit about the deficit? It should be about 15th on the list of priorities right now.
Ok so we’ll get a refund for the afghan and iraqi wars, roll back medicare part d and un-do tarp and the stimulus. Then we can raise taxes?
This kind of silliness really makes it hard to take you seriously. Cigarette taxes and tanning bed taxes? Jesus, I thought we were trying to have a serious discussion here.
And, in case you didn’t notice, the thread was about Obama proposing a spending cut - it’s not like he’s saying “only raise taxes”. As far as I know only Diogenes is saying that…
My concern, which is already playing out, is that the GOP will simply grab onto any spending cuts (except those that affect their voters - ag subsidies, Medicare cost controls, SS will be an interesting test case) while never even addressing the revenue side of the equation. There hasn’t been a serious deficit-reduction policy in the GOP since the mid 90’s, and I certainly don’t see one now.
Gangster’s point is also well taken, if somewhat muted by the fact that debt concerns and uncertainty about future tax regimes is have a small drag effect on the current economic climate, IMO. A refusal to extend current unemployment benefits would be another distressing signal.
So…approximately $70 billion a year, assuming we actually get all that tax revenue and ‘the rich’ don’t manage to avoid paying the full taxes using other means. Correct?
-XT
It’s my understanding that the $700 billion is including the rich’s normal deductions. There is zero reason to assume that we won’t actually get that money. The government has problems, but it knows how to tax people.
Couple problems here - [ol][li]You mis-attributed the quote. [*]I realize the temptation to brush aside instances of Obama breaking his word, but they are directly relevant to the case. He promised not to raise taxes, and lied. How then should I believe him if he claims he will make spending cuts? I already mentioned that Obama claimed hundreds of billions in waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare, and didn’t cut them out. [/ol][/li]
And if they do, they will be doing more to address the problems of the deficit than the Democrats who want to raise taxes will do.
What I would like is to prevent both sides from doing this - the GOP needs to push spending cuts, and not change the subject to maintaining taxes at their current level, and Democrats don’t get to change the subject to raising taxes until after the necessary spending cuts have been made.
We haven’t needed one - the deficit has not reached disastrous proportions until the Dems took over Congress and especially when Obama took office.
That’s nice - what spending cuts do you propose?
Regards,
Shodan
Well, I’ve talked to my dad and his tax person has apparently told him that there are several ways he can get out of paying at least some of the tax if the Bush tax cuts get overturned (my dad would be in the range of those supposedly ‘rich’ folks who would go back to paying what they paid before the BTCs). Some of them seem convoluted to me, but I’m not tax lawyer so I have no idea…but if my dad is looking into this I assume that other ‘rich’ folks are doing similar things and being told similar possibilities from their tax people.
Regardless, $70 billion a year, while not exactly chump change, isn’t really all THAT much, nor do I see how it would be more than a drop in the bucket for what we would need to get out of the hole we are in.
Also, I’m not seeing why, if no one but the ‘rich’ got any benefit out of the tax cuts, they aren’t getting rid of them across the board. Seems to me that if this was fact then getting rid of the all wouldn’t effect most people anyway, but it would help with credibility in not trying to target one group of Americans. If it’s not true (as I suspect, since I’m NOT in the +$250k/year income bracket and I know my taxes are less than they were), then it will be that much more money available to the government to get us out of debt…right?
-XT
Keeping in mind that the estimated budget deficit for 2010 is $1.3 trillion.
So, all we need to do is apply all of the increased revenue to reducing the deficit, and we are well over 5% of the way there.
Wonderful - now we can talk about the other 94.5% or so.
Regards,
Shodan
Yeah, that’s what I was thinking as well. I mean, 5% is nice and all (assuming it doesn’t have any negative effects on the economy or recovery or whatever), but…well, it’s hardly a panacea that some seem to be thinking it is. It’s like the 2 year freeze on salaries…it’s more for public consumption than an actual ‘fix’ for our problems.
-XT