De-Mystifying the Budget Debate

[Flaylo]

Jeffrey Sachs: De-Mystifying the Budget Debate

 

[expat_panama]

...Jeffrey Sachs: De-Mystifying the Budget Debate

From the article: "Cutting the spending sharply, as proposed by Ryan for example, would mean a brutal squeeze on America's poor (who are already suffering from high unemployment..."

We all want to help the poor and the question is do we help them by unsustainable increases of taxing and spending, or do we let people keep money to hire the poor. It's a choice between a few months of welfare and years of job opportunities.

 

[Flaylo]

...Jeffrey Sachs: De-Mystifying the Budget Debate

From the article: "Cutting the spending sharply, as proposed by Ryan for example, would mean a brutal squeeze on America's poor (who are already suffering from high unemployment..."

We all want to help the poor and the question is do we help them by unsustainable increases of taxing and spending, or do we let people keep money to hire the poor. It's a choice between a few months of welfare and years of job opportunities.

Nobody is hiring fucking hiring the poor, get that through your head, the companies have made good money the last few years and have offshored it, fuck that, if they're not going to hire they shouldn't get jack shit, fuck that trickle bullshit, it has never worked.

 

[Joe Steel]

We all want to help the poor and the question is do we help them by unsustainable increases of taxing and spending...

They're not unsustainable.

...or do we let people keep money to hire the poor. It's a choice between a few months of welfare and years of job opportunities.

The point of the recent stimulus was substituting public spending for the private spending which isn't happening.

 

[beowolfe]

...Jeffrey Sachs: De-Mystifying the Budget Debate

From the article: "Cutting the spending sharply, as proposed by Ryan for example, would mean a brutal squeeze on America's poor (who are already suffering from high unemployment..."

We all want to help the poor and the question is do we help them by unsustainable increases of taxing and spending, or do we let people keep money to hire the poor. It's a choice between a few months of welfare and years of job opportunities.

No. You solve everyone's problem by taxing the rich at the rates that were present during Clinton's administration. That takes care of the poor, relieves the burden on the middle class, and provides the money the feds need to balance the budget, and begin paying off the debt. If you don't restore the tax rates for the wealthy, you're dooming this country financially. There is NO WAY to pay off the debt with the tax rates in the Ryan plan.

 

[peach174]

Let's see Ryan's plan - cutting sharply?
For his Medicare - changing over to vouchers for Medicare in 2022 is sharp? That is 12 years in my book.
Retired husband and wife would be getting 16,000.00 to chose health care plan.
Keeping it the way it is for people who are 55 and up, it gives plenty of time for people who are 54 and under to plan for the change.
Keeping it for low income families (poor) and for those that have autism or greater disabilities. This is helping the poor.
His plan saves money. Right now we are paying 808 billion for this program. His plan would save us around 240 billion dollars. Maybe even more because in the future we will not have the large baby boomer generation. We will have a much smaller amount of retirees,the ones who are 54 now, in 2022 is not going to be a large amount.
Everybody should start going to Thomas.gov and start reading these bills and stop listening to News Media and blogs.

 

[peach174]

We all want to help the poor and the question is do we help them by unsustainable increases of taxing and spending...

They're not unsustainable.

...or do we let people keep money to hire the poor. It's a choice between a few months of welfare and years of job opportunities.

The point of the recent stimulus was substituting public spending for the private spending which isn't happening.

Unfunded liabilities is unsustainable.We have to change entitlement programs.
Medicare costs is going to reach 78 trillion - unsustainable
Unfunded liabilities is going to reach 113 trillion, unsustainable.
High taxes will not fix this. Cutting must be done in order to help the poor.
We have government programs who help the rich,this kind of stuff has to stop.

 

[expat_panama]

We all want to help the poor and the question is do we help them by unsustainable increases of taxing and spending...

They're not unsustainable.

We probably agree that governments are like other human activities and are subject to limits of growth, and that a nation's tax/spending is limited by the size of the economy that supports it. As our economy shrinks so do the limits to tax/spending.

...or do we let people keep money to hire the poor. It's a choice between a few months of welfare and years of job opportunities.

The point of the recent stimulus was substituting public spending for the private spending which isn't happening.

We agree that the spending stimuli didn't work. We should also agree that after the '04 rate cuts, gov't revenue increased.

 

[boedicca]

Jeffrey Sachs: De-Mystifying the Budget Debate

This post violates my policy of not clicking on links for which the poster has not had the courtesy to provide any commentary as to why said links are relevant.

Sorry. No clickage for you.

 

[peach174]

We also have to get rid of the regulations and laws that are costing us all to much money.
Companies are paying out so much money to meet the regulations that they don't have the money to hire people or the money to give raises to the workers they already have.
Example the EPA requires so much testing of water companies even when it has been proven that there are many water sources that don't have the same problems. The East coast has some problems and they need those tests but in the west those problems do not exist. It brings up the cost of water for every single test that they deem needs to be done. It has gotten to the point that too many regulations are strangling us to be productive.
This micro management of government has to stop.

 

[expat_panama]

...get rid of the regulations and laws that are costing us all to much money. Companies are paying out so much money to meet the regulations that they don't have the money to hire people...

Agreed. In fact, I've heard right-wingers say they'd accept higher tax rates along with reduced regulation.

 

[Oddball]

The point of the recent stimulus was substituting public spending for the private spending which isn't happening.

The point of the recent succubus was to payola to prop up state bureaucrat unions....Period.

 

[beowolfe]

We all want to help the poor and the question is do we help them by unsustainable increases of taxing and spending...

They're not unsustainable.

...or do we let people keep money to hire the poor. It's a choice between a few months of welfare and years of job opportunities.

The point of the recent stimulus was substituting public spending for the private spending which isn't happening.

Unfunded liabilities is unsustainable.We have to change entitlement programs.
Medicare costs is going to reach 78 trillion - unsustainable
Unfunded liabilities is going to reach 113 trillion, unsustainable.
High taxes will not fix this. Cutting must be done in order to help the poor.
We have government programs who help the rich,this kind of stuff has to stop.

Returning taxes back to the levels under Clinton and the phasing out of the stimulus package (it's done what it could) IMO, will solve this problem.

 

[peach174]

...get rid of the regulations and laws that are costing us all to much money. Companies are paying out so much money to meet the regulations that they don't have the money to hire people...

Agreed. In fact, I've heard right-wingers say they'd accept higher tax rates along with reduced regulation.

We have only half of this nation paying taxes, of which 9% aren't any longer. That leaves 41 percent paying taxes.
We need to have a least 75% paying taxes.

 

[expat_panama]

...Returning taxes back to the levels under Clinton and the phasing out of the stimulus package (it's done what it could) IMO, will solve this problem.

Clinton era tax levels weren't sustainable, they left us with falling revenue--

--and after the '03 tax cuts revenue grew fast enough to shrink the deficit. Revenue fell again with the contraction in '08 but not to pre-taxcut levels

 

[Mr. Shaman]

...Jeffrey Sachs: De-Mystifying the Budget Debate

From the article: "Cutting the spending sharply, as proposed by Ryan for example, would mean a brutal squeeze on America's poor (who are already suffering from high unemployment..."

We all want to help the poor and the question is do we help them by unsustainable increases of taxing and spending, or do we let people keep money to hire the poor. It's a choice between a few months of welfare and years of job opportunities.

....OR, for the 1%ers/high-roller$ kickin'-in another 3%, in taxes.

(....As if they'd have to take-on another job.

)​

 

[DiamondDave]

And of course, the lefty troll calling for unequal treatment by government... when it benefits him and his cause... but screaming for equal treatment by government, only when it benefits him or his cause

typical... oh so typical

 

[Skull Pilot]

Demystifying the "historical" "unprecedented" "draconian" 1% budget cut.


It turns out the drastic 1% proposed cut in spending is really more like .01%

NationalJournal.com - CBO Says Budget Deal Will Cut Spending by Only $352 Million This Year - Thursday, April 14, 2011

A Congressional Budget Office analysis of the fiscal 2011 spending deal that Congress will vote on Thursday concludes that it would cut spending this year by less than one-one hundredth of what both Republicans or Democrats have claimed.

All the demystifying you need is that the fucking government will do nothing to balance the books and we'll end up with a debt crisis that will make the depression look like a boom.

Wake the fuck up sheep!

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

...Jeffrey Sachs: De-Mystifying the Budget Debate

From the article: "Cutting the spending sharply, as proposed by Ryan for example, would mean a brutal squeeze on America's poor (who are already suffering from high unemployment..."

We all want to help the poor and the question is do we help them by unsustainable increases of taxing and spending, or do we let people keep money to hire the poor. It's a choice between a few months of welfare and years of job opportunities.

Nobody is hiring fucking hiring the poor, get that through your head, the companies have made good money the last few years and have offshored it, fuck that, if they're not going to hire they shouldn't get jack shit, fuck that trickle bullshit, it has never worked.

Actually we just opened a new shop and gave 3 people full time jobs paying well above minimum wage. If the taxes weren't so high here we would hire a 4th person part time as an office person but alas that is my job, in addition to my normal job, for now.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

...Jeffrey Sachs: De-Mystifying the Budget Debate

From the article: "Cutting the spending sharply, as proposed by Ryan for example, would mean a brutal squeeze on America's poor (who are already suffering from high unemployment..."

We all want to help the poor and the question is do we help them by unsustainable increases of taxing and spending, or do we let people keep money to hire the poor. It's a choice between a few months of welfare and years of job opportunities.

No. You solve everyone's problem by taxing the rich at the rates that were present during Clinton's administration. That takes care of the poor, relieves the burden on the middle class, and provides the money the feds need to balance the budget, and begin paying off the debt. If you don't restore the tax rates for the wealthy, you're dooming this country financially. There is NO WAY to pay off the debt with the tax rates in the Ryan plan.

Bingo!!!​

August 5, 1996​

"Some columnists claim that tax receipts are now a bigger share of the economy than ever before, presumably the result of tax increases enacted in 1993. As a result, they say, federal taxes and especially federal income taxes should be cut. But the claim is false.

The 1993 budget legislation did increase federal tax receipts. One can not, however, draw from this the conclusion that taxes increased significantly for the majority of taxpayers. The 1993 changes in the tax code increased federal income tax rates only for high-income taxpayers.

Because taxes paid by wealthy taxpayers increased significantly, average tax burdens climbed. But this tells nothing about the taxes paid by the typical taxpayer. Consider four middle-class families with taxable incomes of $30,000 and one wealthy family with a taxable income of $500,000. The four hypothetical middle-income families in the middle of the income spectrum each paid $6,000 — or 20 percent of income — in federal taxes both before and after the 1993 tax code changes. The wealthy family paid $140,000 — or 28 percent of income — before the tax code changes, and $160,000 — or 32 percent of income — after the changes. The average tax increase paid by all five families was $4,000. But all of this increase was borne by the one wealthy family.

As this example illustrates, using the increase in average tax payments produces a misleading picture of what has happened to the typical family tax burden. In this example, the typical family — the family that falls in the middle of the income distribution, with half of families earning more income and half earning less — pays no more in federal income taxes before the 1993 tax code changes than after."

Taxes: The Highest in History?

(1%er bullshit-as-usual.)​