No. Stop right there. It will not fix the issue by itself. It will address the issue. You need to deal with reality here.
I am for cuts. But cuts alone won’t do it. The debt commission is offering ideas now. When they have their final proposals we can deal with that directly. Now, we can get rid of a chunk of the problem getting rid of the top rate tax decrease.
When Bush was president they couldn’t override a veto. Since Obama has been president there was a near depression. You don’t appear to understand what is happening in the world. Don’t you think you should look into things before discussing them?
Have you internalized disinformation to such an extent that you simply ignore facts that don’t fit your world view?
The Stimulus, TARP and auto bailouts aren’t yearly costs, silly. Do you know *anything *about what is actually happening?
I know it’s easier to wrap yourself in comfortable lies, but you don’t deal with real problems that way.
Stop being all sensible and shit. This is GD, and Shodan and Dio are doing what they do.
Political reality is that both spending and revenue are going to have to change. We’re going to have to see steps taken along the lines of what Obama’s commission is recommending.
Political reality is also that neither party is going to take those steps anytime soon, because they are both full of partisan juveniles, as you can see.
I can not believe I just read an outraged union response I actually agree with. Although I’m not outraged. However, he is right in that wages aren’t the problem. 2 billion saved? Great, only another 13791 billion more in cuts needed to eliminate the debt.
Sorry, 13792. It took me a moment to look up our current debt level, we gained another billion while I was doing that.
Gotta include the time it took me to write the above sentence.
13794…
Screw it, I’ll just live with the fact that by time anyone reads this message the number will be out of date by more than the entire amount saved in this move.
It’s yet another reminder to people like me that he likes to screw over the middle class so he can pander to the Reps and his big business supporters. He’s apparently leaning against letting the Bush tax cuts expire and now this. Government jobs remain one of the few well paying avenues of employment for many people. The mailman and the nurse are not the reason for the budget deficit and the current fiscal problems we face. They should not be penalized as a result.
I’m a diehard Dem but I don’t have to vote in the next election. He and his fellow Dems need to remember that and start looking after our interests rather than the interests of Goldman Sacks employees.
Then why do you change the subject away from them with such determination?
I have already posted that the CBO estimates this year’s deficit at $1.3 trillion. How much of that is auto bailouts?
If the Democrats, who control the Senate and White House, come up with a bill that increases taxes and also cuts spending by the same amount, for the same period, I would support it. I will not accept any promise to cut spending later in return for tax increases now - as mentioned, we have already seen that Obama has broken promises related to the topic before. It’s the same garbage as the claim that Obamacare will cut the deficit. What is really meant is that IF we cut Medicare, we can spend the savings on new spending.
We should have made the Medicare Sustainable Growth cuts before spending the money on Obama’s health care package. Because we definitely have the spending, but Congress has never made the MSG cuts.
I’m curious, did you actually looked at the chart you linked? The Bush tax cuts were passed in 2001. That chart shows tax receipts falling in 2000. That must have been one hell of a tax cut if it went back in time to affect receipts before the 2000 election had even happened yet.
Also note that in 2003/4, after Bush’s tax cuts were passed, that receipts had recovered and were slightly higher than the 18% average. So I gotta say no, no I don’t see a correlation between the Bush tax cuts and tax receipts.
On the other hand, there does seem to be a pretty strong correlation to the dotcom bust, 9/11, and the housing blowup.
Why not? Why so desperate now? Unemployment is at 10%, folks are losing their unemployment benefits and all you seem to care about is some abstract notion that the deficit needs to be dealt with RIGHT NOW.
This is false. It has been false ever since permanent doc-fix was removed from the health care bill. I don’t know why this has to be repeatedly pointed out (I know I personally have more than once - I’ll cite it out again if you’d like). There are real cost savings in the bill related to Medicare, completely independent of the Medicare cuts that are routinely overridden.
I’m not sure I follow. Are you saying that Medicare payments should be cut by $200 billion? If so, I believe that is the first spending cut you have actually proposed in this thread. Thank you.
Of course I looked at the chart… I don’t just post links without reading them. 2000 was the peak year, not the first decline (that was 2001). 2003 and 2004 are actually the lowest revenue years. The second “peak”’ was in 2007, and was barely back up to the average (and still 2% below the 2000 peak).
Obviously economic factors will have a huge impact on revenue, but they also have a huge impact on GDP.
You’re thinking of someone else. Otherwise I have become a part of the vivid fantasy life that you base your ideology on. If so, I would like a red cape.
Do you want to actually know how much Obama has increased the deficit? Because you’ve been told you before and now you haven’t managed to retain any of that information.
Which would bring them closer (but still probably greater) than the government salaries for the same type of job. Not that I’m complaining. I didn’t join goverment service for the money, but rather to work environment that was less profit oriented and more science oriented.
Mostly I am just upset over the assumptions that government workers are
over-paid
under worked
incompetent
relative to private sector workers. If we really were over-paid and under worked with few requirements, one would think that government jobs would have been highly sought after, but that didn’t seem to be the case.
My law firm health insurance has lower premiums and MUCH better coverage than anything the federal government offers its employees.
I don’t think that federal employment should be the base below which private sector pay should not fall.
We are seeing all sorts of proposed reforms for school teachers, why can’t we have similar reforms for federal employees (I’m sure we could craft some sort of protection from politically motivated personnel decisions) and pay them more and compete with the private sector.
From the statistics I have seen, the private sector fires people twice as frequently as the federal government. that means that the federal government still fires at half the rate of the private sector. I don’t know if federal employees are really making a rational decision if the only reason they are there is for the job security.
You don’t think it would make sense to do it all at the same time?
Tax increases are a necessary part of any attempt to balance the budget. Most cost cutting is going to have to come in the form of military cuts and entitlement reform.
I think that as soon as some “other” people recognize that tax increases are a necessary part of the formula then I guess we could move on but as long as people insist that we can maintain these tax rates and balance the budget, then I think its up to those “other” people to tell us how they can get there without the tax increases.
We will not -repeat, not fix the problem without raising taxes. So lets not pretend that we can.
Well, does the fact that we are at historically low tax rates sway you at all? A large part of our deficit is the result of low tax revenue. Its not the only thing but I am waiting to see a Republican offer spending cuts in one of the only three areas that will make a difference, medicare, social security and military spending. Lets see if there are any adults on the Republican side of the aisle.
When we balanced our budget in Canada, we did it with a ratio of about 7:1 spending cuts to tax increases. That seems about right to me.
But I wouldn’t agree to tax increases unless the spending cuts were explicitly defined, authorized, and took place immediately. I’ve been around long enough to see what happens when you raise taxes on the promise of future spending cuts - the taxes go up, it takes a little pressure off the deficit, and then the spending cuts never happen. Democrats in the U.S. have been playing that shell game since Reagan’s tax increase. They promised it for Bush I’s tax increases as well. It never happened. Congress has passed numerous balanced budget resolutions and spending control legislation. None of it every comes to fruition. And if they get tax increases first, they’ll have less incentive to cut spending.
If I had to make a deal with them, I’d want the spending cuts in the next budget. And not just promised cuts to 'waste, fraud and abuse", or a promise to fund a vague 500 billion dollars through ‘cuts to Medicare.’. I’m talking specificity like, “Agency X will received 5.2 trillion dollars less next year. X number of people will be subject to early retirement in FY2011. We will close military bases A, B, and C, and defund program X and Y.” Etc. Hard, specific cuts that can not be revoked.
If they can’t get the votes for those cuts… Oh well. Too bad. No tax increases for you.
Anything short of that is a smokescreen and should be immediately dismissed by Republicans.
I notice that none of the righties are willing to say what they’d cut. Are you willing to desist with your precious war on Muslims, or do you just want to make sure kids can’t go to school and get health care?