Balance the Budget?

[antagon]

i think the solutions in the poll are dated. policy is migrating away from 20th century approaches to revenue and expenditure, while the poll assumes staying the course. i managed a decent spread, but would have gone after different sources than many of those proposed. there's no welfare caps for housing and for family size for instance. that's what im licking my chops over. there's no fees on visas and citizenships. how wrong would a 1910 poll like this wrestling over tariff rates be in light of income tax coming into play in 1913. in two years, that will be a hundred years back. i dont see why we arent on the brink of more enlightened change in the way things are done in public finance.

 

[DiamondDave]

This link, while amusing, limits it to where someone HAS to basically increase taxes... quite possibly in a propaganda move to make people think it is necessary... it also did not have a lot of things listed that can and SHOULD be eliminated form government...

Spending is in deed the problem... and it will only be taken care of by the elimination of that which got us in to trouble in the first place

 

[antagon]

i think public finances do have to be increased on the receipt-end for a solution to be credible, ddave. rather than claiming that anything which doesn't line right up with your world-view is a conspiracy, it could help that you recognize the impact that making more has relative to spending less. the latter simply does not cut it often times, and a challenge for lawmakers is created whereby they need to figure out how they are going to deal with the need to increase revenues without extinguishing economic activity.

even though i agree that the choices available are limited, perhaps to proposals which are actually on the table, i think this is a good exercise for people like yourself who feel that balancing a budget is as simple as you put forward rhetorically. the OP challenges rhetorical conservatives to make the tough decisions which lawmakers are likely to have to, but most merely bitch.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

This link, while amusing, limits it to where someone HAS to basically increase taxes... quite possibly in a propaganda move to make people think it is necessary... it also did not have a lot of things listed that can and SHOULD be eliminated form government...

Spending is in deed the problem... and it will only be taken care of by the elimination of that which got us in to trouble in the first place

Loosecannon posted a link where the budget is covered using 100% cuts, no tax increases. So it is possible.

I'll admit, that the application isn't perfect, but then getting something with every possible option and every possible variable would be impossible to distil into an app regardless.

The point of the exercise is for people to see that unless you want to do some tough cutting to the Military, Social Security, and Medicare you're not going to balance using just cuts. It's also interesting to note that the way the app is set up, you can't actually cover the 2030 shortfall using just Taxes either.

Personally, I felt pretty good about a 79% spending cuts, 21% tax increases solution that I came up with. I don't think that you can just cut your way out of the problem we're facing, and I definitely don't think you can tax you way out.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

There are problems with some of the assumptions, not the least of which are earmarks and raising taxes.

First off, most earmarks are money that would be spent in block grants to the states in the first place. The earmarking process merely involves congressweasels directing some of that money to favored projects.

Agreed. I didn't check the Earmarks box as I didn't think a real cut to them is possible for many different reasons, not the least of which is the State block grants.

Secondly, as I already mentioned, the tax increases presume that people will continue engaging in the taxed activity in the same manner that they did prior to the new tax and/or increase....Which never ever happens.

True. When I opted for taxes I went for Clinton Era taxes for that reason. People were still investing under Clinton, so while we'd see some change in behavior, its the closest data point for approximation.

Thanks for outlining your solution. The 2015 gap is the really hard one to cover with just cuts. You can "tax you way out" from the 2015 gap using the App, but taxes alone won't cover the 2030 gap.

 

[JBeukema]

I find it disingenuous that it labels not-extending th Bush Tax Cuts, which are set to expire, 'raising taxes'. Not cutting taxes =/= raising taxes

i would say the same thing about a politician who said they wont raise taxes, but who let low-tax provisions expire.

That's not raising taxes. It's simply not lowering them.

Not buying you another beer isn't taking your beer away.

 

[antagon]

I find it disingenuous that it labels not-extending th Bush Tax Cuts, which are set to expire, 'raising taxes'. Not cutting taxes =/= raising taxes

i would say the same thing about a politician who said they wont raise taxes, but who let low-tax provisions expire.

That's not raising taxes. It's simply not lowering them.

Not buying you another beer isn't taking your beer away.

the taxes were lowered. failure to renew the policy is raising them back.

 

[JBeukema]

That's like saying not pouring more water into a leaky sink is draining the sink

 

[antagon]

when my tax liability goes up as a share of my earnings from one FY to the next, taxes have gone up. if concerning yourself over whether it's action or inaction is more crucial for ya, you're welcome to obsess about that. the bottom line is what makes the difference one april to the next. most folks will hold the government accountable along those lines.

 

[loosecannon]

i think the solutions in the poll are dated. policy is migrating away from 20th century approaches to revenue and expenditure, while the poll assumes staying the course. i managed a decent spread, but would have gone after different sources than many of those proposed. there's no welfare caps for housing and for family size for instance. that's what im licking my chops over. there's no fees on visas and citizenships. how wrong would a 1910 poll like this wrestling over tariff rates be in light of income tax coming into play in 1913. in two years, that will be a hundred years back. i dont see why we arent on the brink of more enlightened change in the way things are done in public finance.

OK, I will bite, what did you have in mind and how is it qualitatively different than 20th century policymaking?

 

[loosecannon]

That's like saying not pouring more water into a leaky sink is draining the sink

this is called a semantic argument, meaning it is dwelling on a superficial aspect. Except in the eyes of folks who are looking for framing points to use as political bludgeons.

Why go there?

 

[JBeukema]

The ones playing semantic games are the ones accusing those of not giving tax breaks of raising taxes


but when are rightwingers ever honest?

 

[loosecannon]

FWIW if it was up to me we would first install a balanced budget amendment to the constitution and then sit back and watch Congress wrestle over how to get it done.

I assume none of us is really a qualified expert on the budget.

 

[loosecannon]

The ones playing semantic games are the ones accusing those of not giving tax breaks of raising taxes


but when are rightwingers ever honest?

liar. It's both. This is how partisanship poisons every essential public debate.

I am in favor of excluding partisans from all political discussion.

 

[GHook93]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...ollars-are-spent-where-do-you-say-to-cut.html

 

[antagon]

i think the solutions in the poll are dated. policy is migrating away from 20th century approaches to revenue and expenditure, while the poll assumes staying the course. i managed a decent spread, but would have gone after different sources than many of those proposed. there's no welfare caps for housing and for family size for instance. that's what im licking my chops over. there's no fees on visas and citizenships. how wrong would a 1910 poll like this wrestling over tariff rates be in light of income tax coming into play in 1913. in two years, that will be a hundred years back. i dont see why we arent on the brink of more enlightened change in the way things are done in public finance.

OK, I will bite, what did you have in mind and how is it qualitatively different than 20th century policymaking?

lots of this stuff i've yapped about already, but there are no options to cap welfare entitlement to a social or economic standard, while they are raised along such standards as inflation. i suppose there's a mention of the carbon tax initiative. i didn't select that, however, the next 50 years will likely entail government revenue derived from direct usage like the massive industry excise in obamacare, while income tax rates will continue to be suppressed. i would include fees for legal immigration status and citizenship... more like 'ask not what the government can do for free, ask what fee you'll pay the government.' this puts folks who aren't heavy users of government support at a smaller tax liability to those like banks and insurers who lean on the government like a chaise lounge.

 

[Oddball]

FWIW if it was up to me we would first install a balanced budget amendment to the constitution and then sit back and watch Congress wrestle over how to get it done.

I assume none of us is really a qualified expert on the budget.

There already is a balanced budget provision in the Constitution...Only specie is to be considered lawful money.

The problem with deficits and debt is directly traceable back to the creation of the Fed and it's worthless fiat currency scam.

 

[Flopper]

It's important to make progress toward a balanced budget but it's not necessary that we balance it. We have had a deficit 36 of the last 40 years. I think the most important factor to consider is the effect on interest rates. When it appears that we have runaway deficit spending and are making no progress in controlling the deficit, then investors both here and abroad become hesitant about lending to the US. This will push up interest rates and can make things a lot worse. Of course, it's all relative to what other countries are doing to control deficit spending. Right now Europe is belt tightening and the US should follow suit.

 

[antagon]

FWIW if it was up to me we would first install a balanced budget amendment to the constitution and then sit back and watch Congress wrestle over how to get it done.

I assume none of us is really a qualified expert on the budget.

There already is a balanced budget provision in the Constitution...Only specie is to be considered lawful money.

The problem with deficits and debt is directly traceable back to the creation of the Fed and it's worthless fiat currency scam.

budgets were optionally debt-funded a century before the republic, and the US did not balance its early budgets at all. we were at risk of default following 1812, for instance. your claim is not based in reality. a central bank is a crucial component for running a state with private banks and issuing a currency. no two ways about it. commodity-backed currencies are just as scandalous, moreover.

 

[antagon]

i think there ought to be independent budget oversight, or that the treasury should be elevated to a constitutional branch alongside the executive legislature and judiciary. i'd say that the latter ought to work via consensus and be isolated from the public vote and high turnover like the judiciary. then a budget can be handed to the congress, and they'd have to deal with what they've been handed.

the point is that the government cant always be accountable for its best interest and its budget at the same time, such that human oversight rather than a document makes more sense.