How do you feel the standoff in Washington would best resolved?

[percysunshine]

And use lots of lipstick.

 

[cpcreativity]

It is a move toward socialism commerade. Dress up the pig any way you wish. Your colors are revealed for all to see.

Fair point saveliberty. Well then I would love to hear your opinion on how would you suggest going about balancing the budget without increasing taxes or closing lopeholes and deductions? (Even though the Republicans suggest a $800 billion dollar raise using just that.)

The idea I have to to meet somewhere in the middle of liberal socialism and right-wing capitalism if you will.....

 

[saveliberty]

What is the point of you attending college? Do you hope to better your economic position? Benefit from your labors? Build something of value you get to keep? Some people are just better at it and make more. Stop being greedy.

 

[saveliberty]

It is a move toward socialism commerade. Dress up the pig any way you wish. Your colors are revealed for all to see.

Fair point saveliberty. Well then I would love to hear your opinion on how would you suggest going about balancing the budget without increasing taxes or closing lopeholes and deductions? (Even though the Republicans suggest a $800 billion dollar raise using just that.)

The idea I have to to meet somewhere in the middle of liberal socialism and right-wing capitalism if you will.....

Dumping more money into a failed system doesn't fix anything. Make Washington responsible for the funds they already have. If they become better stewards of that money, we can try some more. Throwing money at a problem doesn't fix it.

 

[Pheonixops]

Start out with a 10% cut in spending across the board, a 1% tax increase for all brackets, 1% increase on dividends/capital gains, and lower the income amount where people have to start paying income tax.

 

[Pheonixops]

How would the division of the nation best be resolved and why does compromise not seem like an option?


I would like to start by suggesting the unthinkable. Raise taxes install a minimum tax rate percentage of let's say 30% as Warren Buffet suggested, lower spending, lessen regulation on trade, put pressure on China and other market-share abusers, drill a little more, etc. Do things that would raise revenues and cut expenses regardless of party. Instead of taking firm stands against the other side and having the other side do the same, why not moderately do what both sides are suggesting and in some cases literally find a middle ground?


The debate should not be about whether dems or reps or tea partiers or greens or libs are right in their stances. Rather, it should be about how to take into account all opinions and draw up a middle ground stance that most people can agree with at least a little bit.

I like that balanced approach.

 

[DiamondDave]

Best resolved by the gridlock.. maybe, just maybe, when they are forced to deal with no additional borrowing and no additional revenue, they will FINALLY address the real problem of SPENDING

 

[Papageorgio]

Figure out how to live with a tax increase and the dollar decreasing in value.

Well first off a tax increase of any rate that has been talked about would not effect the standard of living as much as people hype it up to. Secondly, I believe that our dollar's value would rise if we were even slightly surplussed.

Not effect the standard of living? People are barely making it by as it is. You may not think it's that important, but alot of it will be the difference between food on the table or rent/mortgage payments, and the poor house.

And raising taxes isnt going to create a surplus. It will only widen the deficit, because it will slow the already limping economy and the spending hasnt stopped. We will never have a surplus while we are outspending revenues. And we havent had a real surplus in almost a century or more.

Hell, most families and businesses are on the edge now, let's let government and taxes finish them off and then watch the Washington finger pointing begin. The more we tax and spend, the worse this economy will get.

 

[Oldstyle]

Can we at least agree that we're spending way too much and need to make cuts?

Can we also agree that the Federal Government by it's very nature is incredibly wasteful and will remain so unless it is forced to change?

Can we also agree that for the millions of Americans who are out of work right now that the number one priority should be growing the economy and creating jobs?

Yes, sometimes, and yes.

I like to look at Clinton's presidency as an example of a non-wasteful two terms (in comparison to most recent others). I mean, Bill Clinton presided over one of the largest economic booms the world has ever seen. He raised taxes and government revenue, yet our economy was growing faster that ever. He left office with a budget SURPLUS of about $120 billion yearly (i.e. part of that was going to pay off the national debt). He helped create more jobs than most presidents in recent history and had a solid stance on foreign policy.

With all due respect, CP...Bill Clinton was fortunate enough to preside over most of the Dot Com Boom which ALLOWED him to raise taxes and hence revenue. He did not create the Dot Com Boom nor did the raising of taxes contribute to that boom. He was also working with an extremely conservative Congress led by Newt Gingrich that more or less forced him into that budget "SURPLUS". Trying to make the claim that Bill Clinton was primarily responsible for the jobs created by the Dot Com Boom or the surplus is a bit of a stretch. I've always given Clinton high marks for understanding economics enough to handle fiscal policy. It's something that he and Barack Obama are light years apart on.

Two years ago Bill Clinton made a very honest appraisal of the fiscal situation we were facing when he declared that it wasn't a good time to raise taxes on anyone. He modified that stance completely during the last Presidential campaign because, let's face it, if Bill Clinton is nothing else...he's a politician who knows how to play the game.

My point is that I don't think for a second that Bill Clinton would have handled HIS Presidency as Barack Obama has handled his because Clinton is much more savvy when it comes to economic policy whereas Obama's policies are based on ideology as much as economic theory.

 

[percysunshine]

Note to self. Tax revenues are not the same as tax rates.

 

[cpcreativity]

What is the point of you attending college? Do you hope to better your economic position? Benefit from your labors? Build something of value you get to keep? Some people are just better at it and make more. Stop being greedy.

First off, not greedy just sensible. Secondly, I am in college because without a college degree good luck doing much of anything in this country. The few that do make it and are well off without college degrees got a break somewhere along the line and kudos to them. Thirdly, yes I would like to further my economic position seeing how I am only 20 I have a lot of time. Not to mention my previous statement regarding college degrees being all but necessary.

As for your second comment which was more progressive toward a valid opinion instead of attacking mine, I can see that as a valid argument. So you would suggest spending cuts alone, yes?

Spending cuts alone could cover it and set us up as revenue neutral, but do you not believe that Mitt Romney paying no more than 15% on his capital gains is a little low???

 

[saveliberty]

In fairness CP is learning all his history from a liberal learning institution. His inability to note bias is rooted in his belief his professors are neutral politically and just state fact.

 

[Avatar4321]

What is the point of you attending college? Do you hope to better your economic position? Benefit from your labors? Build something of value you get to keep? Some people are just better at it and make more. Stop being greedy.

First off, not greedy just sensible. Secondly, I am in college because without a college degree good luck doing much of anything in this country. The few that do make it and are well off without college degrees got a break somewhere along the line and kudos to them. Thirdly, yes I would like to further my economic position seeing how I am only 20 I have a lot of time. Not to mention my previous statement regarding college degrees being all but necessary.

As for your second comment which was more progressive toward a valid opinion instead of attacking mine, I can see that as a valid argument. So you would suggest spending cuts alone, yes?

Spending cuts alone could cover it and set us up as revenue neutral, but do you not believe that Mitt Romney paying no more than 15% on his capital gains is a little low???

Who gave Bill Gates his break?

No. As I've said before, anyone paying even 10% is paying too much. You think the government deserves a tenth of your labor and ingenuity? Well you're giving them up to 30% of your time with the current rates.

 

[Sallow]

Figure out how to live with a tax increase and the dollar decreasing in value.

Well first off a tax increase of any rate that has been talked about would not effect the standard of living as much as people hype it up to. Secondly, I believe that our dollar's value would rise if we were even slightly surplussed.

Not effect the standard of living? People are barely making it by as it is. You may not think it's that important, but alot of it will be the difference between food on the table or rent/mortgage payments, and the poor house.

And raising taxes isnt going to create a surplus. It will only widen the deficit, because it will slow the already limping economy and the spending hasnt stopped. We will never have a surplus while we are outspending revenues. And we havent had a real surplus in almost a century or more.

"Barely" making it on over 250K a year?

What world do you live in?

Okay..that's a little low in in Monaco..but sheesh.

 

[Avatar4321]

In fairness CP is learning all his history from a liberal learning institution. His inability to note bias is rooted in his belief his professors are neutral politically and just state fact.

But he is young. and He can be taught.

 

[saveliberty]

What is the point of you attending college? Do you hope to better your economic position? Benefit from your labors? Build something of value you get to keep? Some people are just better at it and make more. Stop being greedy.

First off, not greedy just sensible. Secondly, I am in college because without a college degree good luck doing much of anything in this country. The few that do make it and are well off without college degrees got a break somewhere along the line and kudos to them. Thirdly, yes I would like to further my economic position seeing how I am only 20 I have a lot of time. Not to mention my previous statement regarding college degrees being all but necessary.

As for your second comment which was more progressive toward a valid opinion instead of attacking mine, I can see that as a valid argument. So you would suggest spending cuts alone, yes?

Spending cuts alone could cover it and set us up as revenue neutral, but do you not believe that Mitt Romney paying no more than 15% on his capital gains is a little low???

We want people to accept a higher risk by investing in businesses. The capital gains rate helps achieve that goal. You want a job with that shiny degree no? Might want healthy businesses out there ready to hire. Just a thought.

Here's another thing you need to know. Colleges lie and are very expensive. Your college debt will make buying a house and car a very difficult thing. Colleges don;t survive without a great number of people believing a college is necessary. A good trade school or apprenticeship is far better for many folks.

 

[Avatar4321]

"Barely" making it on over 250K a year?

What world do you live in?

Okay..that's a little low in in Monaco..but sheesh.

First, I know you don't really like reading the discussion. But we were discussing a tax increase on all rates.

Second, yes, there are people making over 250K a year who are bareley making ends meet. Small business owners, for example, who end up claiming profits on their personal statements. And there are also stupid people who make lots of money. Some members of Congress, for example.

 

[saveliberty]

In fairness CP is learning all his history from a liberal learning institution. His inability to note bias is rooted in his belief his professors are neutral politically and just state fact.

But he is young. and He can be taught.

He leans to the dark side Obie One.

 

[cpcreativity]

In fairness CP is learning all his history from a liberal learning institution. His inability to note bias is rooted in his belief his professors are neutral politically and just state fact.

In fairness, saveliberty to jumping to conclusions about me and how I think based on the fact that I am in college. Never did I say I did NOT attend a liberal institution and never did I state that my professors are neutral politically. I find it a little disrespectful that you are judging as heavily as you are. I am merely suggesting that we should do everything we can to bring us to revenue neutral. I see taxing the wealthy a little more (like the rate we saw in the early 1900s perhaps?) to be a viable option. Maybe not the middle and lower classes, but the point is that I see the goal as getting to revenue neutral.

Speaking of which I don't know who you were addressing percy, but if you were addressing me, I know very well the difference between tax rates and tax revenues, thank you.

 

[Oldstyle]

Ideally, Obama, Biden, Pelosi and Reid sequester themselves on a desert island for the next 4 year

CrusaderFrank, who would you rather be in control of the situation? The Romney and Ryan ticket? The problem I have with the majority of Republicans is their lack of upholding what I see as obligatory personal liberties. They would rather outlaw abortion completely and not allow gays to get married. Now, holding religion and legalities separate, would you support a law banning gays from getting LEGALLY married (i.e. churches would not be forced to recognize these marriages). And do you support outlawing abortion completely?

Allowing the issues of gay marriage and abortion to influence your decision over who would best run the country with the fiscal nightmare we're presently looking at is akin to someone who's house is a raging inferno worrying about fire fighters marking up their wooden floors while fighting the fire.

I know that they were two issues that were pushed to the forefront of the conversation whenever possible by the Obama campaign (and with his record on the economy that's very easy to understand) but with the present make-up of the Supreme Court and Congress the chances of abortion law being changed is next to none and gay marriage law is changing via the States even as we now discuss it. I don't think Romney and Ryan would have touched either issue to be quite honest with you...I think their plate would have been quite full with both fiscal issues and dealing with foreign policy. Romney is about at moderate a Republican as they come despite the attempts to paint him as "extreme".