Reducing the National Debt

[merrill]

1. Cut off the preferential Bush tax breaks forever

2. PUT 25 MILLION unemployed back to work at no less than $17.50 per hour

3. Sign on to the budget that some democrats put forward yet the RINO NO party said NO:

The Peoples Budget does everything this country needs = Smart Economics
* Reduces Debt by $10 trillion
* Creates good-paying jobs
* Fully maintains our social safety net
* Invests in education
* Ends our costly wars
* Closes the tax loopholes that have made offshoring jobs profitable
* Ends oil and gas subsidies that pollute our country at taxpayer expense
* Creates a national infrastructure investment bank to help us make intelligent investments for the future

This fiscally responsible budget represents the future we believe in as Americans

Fighting for a People's Budget | The Nation

So still keep 50% of the population paying higher income tax while the other 50% pays nothing in income tax

Starting wages at $17.50 an hour??

The "People's Budget"?? What is this? The USSR??

Want to keep spending and spending on entitlements, eh?? Typical lib

Crack smoking lib

Equalize the taxation per dollar earned with a flat tax.... increasing the tax base.. determine then the rate needed to pay for spending and start paying off the debt.. of course drastically reducing spending and eliminating government entitlements for both rich and poor... no bailouts, no welfare... you're on your own for your own personal responsibilities of personal upkeep

Paying 25 million unemployed workers no less than $17.50 per hour is far better than 25 million on Social Services and/or Unemployment pay.

It would boost local economies significantly thus improving the quality of life throughout america.

 

[DontBeStupid]

So still keep 50% of the population paying higher income tax while the other 50% pays nothing in income tax

Starting wages at $17.50 an hour??

The "People's Budget"?? What is this? The USSR??

Want to keep spending and spending on entitlements, eh?? Typical lib

Crack smoking lib

Equalize the taxation per dollar earned with a flat tax.... increasing the tax base.. determine then the rate needed to pay for spending and start paying off the debt.. of course drastically reducing spending and eliminating government entitlements for both rich and poor... no bailouts, no welfare... you're on your own for your own personal responsibilities of personal upkeep

Dave, you do realize that you can increase the tax base by putting more people to work and paying working people higher wages. You know this, right?

I'd love to know how you can put more people to work and start everybody at $17.50/hr minimum. You can do either one, but not both.

Well then. Good thing I'm not advocating for both then, isn't it?

 

[merrill]

An alternative approach that deserves more attention is the "People's Budget" offered by the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC). It will be introduced in the House on Thursday and it is the strongest rebuke — in the form of an amendment — to the unconscionable "Ryan Budget" for FY 2012.

It's a budget that gives the people — according to poll after poll — exactly what they want (something which shouldn't be a rarity in a healthy, vibrant democracy).

The People's Budget lays out what a robust progressive agenda looks like. It protects an already frayed social net and promotes a progressive tax policy that makes millionaires, billionaires, and big corporations pay their fair share.

It doesn't stop at cutting the low-hanging fruit at the Pentagon, instead it brings our troops home from two wars that cost trillions of dollars and do nothing to make the U.S. safer, and resets and rethinks what real security means in the 21st century.

"The People's Budget generates a government surplus by 2021 by closing tax loopholes, ending corporate giveaways to oil, gas and nuclear entities, bringing our troops home, and creating jobs that expand the American tax base," said Representative Raul Grijalva, co-chair of the CPC. "This is a sensible solution that listens to what the American people have said about where our budget priorities should be."


The Nation: Obama Should Fight For 'People's Budget' : NPR

 

[Wiseacre]

Dave, you do realize that you can increase the tax base by putting more people to work and paying working people higher wages. You know this, right?

I'd love to know how you can put more people to work and start everybody at $17.50/hr minimum. You can do either one, but not both.

Well then. Good thing I'm not advocating for both then, isn't it?

Merrill is. And most lib/dems seem to think there's no problem doing both at the same time. And did you not specifically say "putting more people to work and paying working people higher wages"?

 

[DiamondDave]

I repeat it because it's true. There is no need for us to pay off the national debt.

You know, instead of ignoring my posts and neg repping me every time, you could, just once, try discussing the topic with me. You might learn something.

The magical way of the liberal in dealing with the problem... ignore it and it will go away...

No.... whether you like it or not, debts need to be paid and future budgets have to be trimmed of fat to live with the means... and if the entire citizenry paying an equal share on every dollar earned as income tax, it is more likely to cut government spending than having the upper 50% paying for it all when the other 50% gets shit for free...

Our national debt does not need to be paid back. Period. I have seen no one, ever, on this board, even attempt to show why the national debt needs to be paid back.

And your fantasy scenario has not shown why it does not have to be paid.. in reality.. your repeating it odes not make it so

Debts have to be paid... existing debt drives more and more interest, gobbling up more and more of what is made... We have seen what not paying off the debt, in coupling with idiotic increases in spending does.. especially when half the population sucks off without paying federal income taxes

 

[DiamondDave]

Dave, you do realize that you can increase the tax base by putting more people to work and paying working people higher wages. You know this, right?

I'd love to know how you can put more people to work and start everybody at $17.50/hr minimum. You can do either one, but not both.

Well then. Good thing I'm not advocating for both then, isn't it?

Yes, you did

 

[DiamondDave]

1. Cut off the preferential Bush tax breaks forever

2. PUT 25 MILLION unemployed back to work at no less than $17.50 per hour

3. Sign on to the budget that some democrats put forward yet the RINO NO party said NO:

The Peoples Budget does everything this country needs = Smart Economics
* Reduces Debt by $10 trillion
* Creates good-paying jobs
* Fully maintains our social safety net
* Invests in education
* Ends our costly wars
* Closes the tax loopholes that have made offshoring jobs profitable
* Ends oil and gas subsidies that pollute our country at taxpayer expense
* Creates a national infrastructure investment bank to help us make intelligent investments for the future

This fiscally responsible budget represents the future we believe in as Americans

Fighting for a People's Budget | The Nation

So still keep 50% of the population paying higher income tax while the other 50% pays nothing in income tax

Starting wages at $17.50 an hour??

The "People's Budget"?? What is this? The USSR??

Want to keep spending and spending on entitlements, eh?? Typical lib

Crack smoking lib

Equalize the taxation per dollar earned with a flat tax.... increasing the tax base.. determine then the rate needed to pay for spending and start paying off the debt.. of course drastically reducing spending and eliminating government entitlements for both rich and poor... no bailouts, no welfare... you're on your own for your own personal responsibilities of personal upkeep

Paying 25 million unemployed workers no less than $17.50 per hour is far better than 25 million on Social Services and/or Unemployment pay.

It would boost local economies significantly thus improving the quality of life throughout america.

It would drain local economies and small businesses that generally do the hiring... you want to believe it can magically be done and that the results would magically be good... sorry Charlie, life don't work that way

 

[merrill]

I'd love to know how you can put more people to work and start everybody at $17.50/hr minimum. You can do either one, but not both.

Well then. Good thing I'm not advocating for both then, isn't it?

Merrill is. And most lib/dems seem to think there's no problem doing both at the same time. And did you not specifically say "putting more people to work and paying working people higher wages"?

Families in the USA cannot sustain themselves at anything less than $17.50 per hour. That is only an estimated $36,400 per year. Won't be moving to Aspen on that kind of dough.

 

[DontBeStupid]

I'd love to know how you can put more people to work and start everybody at $17.50/hr minimum. You can do either one, but not both.

Well then. Good thing I'm not advocating for both then, isn't it?

Yes, you did

heh heh Lying about what I wrote, when everyone can clearly see what I wrote, I don't know if that's the best tactic for you.

 

[DontBeStupid]

I'd love to know how you can put more people to work and start everybody at $17.50/hr minimum. You can do either one, but not both.

Well then. Good thing I'm not advocating for both then, isn't it?

Merrill is. And most lib/dems seem to think there's no problem doing both at the same time. And did you not specifically say "putting more people to work and paying working people higher wages"?

He is. He's also not putting a timetable on it. Not that I've seen. If he wants that in place tomorrow or this year, I would object. If he wants it in place in 10 or 20 years, then that's a different conversation.

And yes, I did say that. Now show me where I said I wanted $17.50/hour implemented tomorrow.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Families in the USA cannot sustain themselves at anything less than $17.50 per hour.

Define "family"

You REALLY mean thay cannot sustain themselves at a standard of living you think they are entitled to.

I laugh at you.

 

[DontBeStupid]

And your fantasy scenario has not shown why it does not have to be paid.. in reality.. your repeating it odes not make it so

First off, you realize I'm not trying to prove a negative here. Because you can't. It's not possible. That's why so many of you are dishonest in these discussions. You claim the debt needs to be paid off, I say no it doesn't, and you scream and cry that I need to prove why it doesn't. Not the way works. YOU all are claiming it must be paid off. YOU need to prove your point.

And while you're at it, I'd love to see how you plan on handling the millions of American citizens who use bonds as a safe investment vehicle. Do you plan on just buying them out and screwing them on the interest they were promised?

 

[merrill]

wrong again. $36,400 is not a lot of money. How much do you make?

As far as entitlements go...

We can say that at $36,400 these folks will never be able to keep up with what entitlements these families receive...

But all to no avail. George W. Bush has yet to back off from the monstrous, surplus-draining tax cut proposal that was the cornerstone of his campaign. Now he's even telling us that it's for our own good: His tax cut will cure our softening economy and stave off the threat of recession by "encouraging capital formation, economic growth, and job creation." Even Alan Greenspan, chair of the Federal Reserve Board and a debt-reduction hawk, is prepared to accommodate the Bush plan.

At least one group is happy to swallow the Bush tax cut medicine—"the haves and the haves-more," as Bush referred to his supporters during a fundraiser last year. After all, it is their taxes he will cut. Together, lower income tax rates (with the biggest drop at the top) and the repeal of the estate tax account for nearly three-quarters of the Bush tax cut. Nearly three-fifths of the total benefits of the tax cut package will go to the richest 10% of all taxpayers, and some 43% will go just to the top 1%, those who make more than $319,000 a year and showed average income of $915,000 in 1999.

Dollars and Sense

 

[M14 Shooter]

wrong again. $36,400 is not a lot of money. How much do you make?

I asked you to define "family".
Well?

As far as entitlements go...
We can say that at $36,400 these folks will never be able to keep up with what entitlements these families receive...

You can say that, but w/o any substance to back it...

 

[DontBeStupid]

You can say that, but w/o any substance to back it...

Kind of like saying "eventually the debt will cause an economic and then societal and then governmental collapse" and then providing no substance to back it up.

Like that? Right?

 

[merrill]

Borrowing money to put people back to work does make sense. It helps people most in need, the unemployed. It provides them with income that they can use to pay taxes and to buy goods and services that create more jobs, more income, and more tax revenue.

Indeed, our inability thus far to seriously tackle the unemployment problem is what has worsened the budget problem, as tax receipts have fallen and spending for unemployment benefits and food stamps have risen. An analysis by the Economic Policy Institute reveals that the largest source of the 2009 budget deficit (42%) was actually the recession itself.

We will leave a burden for our grandchildren if we don‘t address the urgent problem of unemployment, if we let parents and grandparents suffer the indignities and financial hardships of lost jobs.

We will leave a burden for our grandchildren if we don‘t rebuild our aging infrastructure, break our reliance on fossil fuels, and provide all our children with an excellent education.

It makes perfect sense to borrow money now to address these problems, and we shouldn‘t let myths about budget deficits get in the way of meeting these real needs.

Marty Wolfson is a professor of economics at the University of Notre Dame

The Myth of the Deficit – Marty Wolfson, Dollars & Sense | Dissenting Democrat

 

[merrill]

wrong again. $36,400 is not a lot of money. How much do you make?

I asked you to define "family".
Well?

As far as entitlements go...
We can say that at $36,400 these folks will never be able to keep up with what entitlements these families receive...

You can say that, but w/o any substance to back it...

Family=one or more living and sharing all of the responsibilities of a home.

 

[Wiseacre]

Well then. Good thing I'm not advocating for both then, isn't it?

Merrill is. And most lib/dems seem to think there's no problem doing both at the same time. And did you not specifically say "putting more people to work and paying working people higher wages"?

He is. He's also not putting a timetable on it. Not that I've seen. If he wants that in place tomorrow or this year, I would object. If he wants it in place in 10 or 20 years, then that's a different conversation.

And yes, I did say that. Now show me where I said I wanted $17.50/hour implemented tomorrow.

C'mon man, I think everyone believes he ain't talking about 10 or 20 years, he's talking about right now. Since you didn't specify an amount or a timeframe, I assumed you were supporting his contention. In any event, we're quibbling about numbers instead of the point I was trying to make.

Which is: putting more people to work AND paying them a higher wage (much higher) is mutually exclusive. There's no getting around it, if you significantly raise the minimum wage, you get less new jobs and fewer new businesses. No doubt the number of fewer jobs is influenced by the economic conditions we're living in (boom or bust), and by how much you raise the rate, but make no mistake, you can't expect to grow the economy with that kind of minimum wage. In fact, you could expect a pretty bad depression IMHO.

 

[M14 Shooter]

wrong again. $36,400 is not a lot of money. How much do you make?

I asked you to define "family".
Well?

As far as entitlements go...
We can say that at $36,400 these folks will never be able to keep up with what entitlements these families receive...

You can say that, but w/o any substance to back it...

Family=one or more living and sharing all of the responsibilities of a home.

So, a family of 2 aduts and 2 kids = $72,800 yr.
That's 3.25x poverty level, and exceeds the average US household income.

But, according to YOU, these people do not make a lot of money, cannot keep their standard of living up with those who live off on entitlements, and cannot sustain themselves on anything less.

Conclusion:
You're full of horsepuckey.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Merrill is. And most lib/dems seem to think there's no problem doing both at the same time. And did you not specifically say "putting more people to work and paying working people higher wages"?

He is. He's also not putting a timetable on it. Not that I've seen. If he wants that in place tomorrow or this year, I would object. If he wants it in place in 10 or 20 years, then that's a different conversation.

And yes, I did say that. Now show me where I said I wanted $17.50/hour implemented tomorrow.

C'mon man, I think everyone believes he ain't talking about 10 or 20 years, he's talking about right now. Since you didn't specify an amount or a timeframe, I assumed you were supporting his contention. In any event, we're quibbling about numbers instead of the point I was trying to make.

Which is: putting more people to work AND paying them a higher wage (much higher) is mutually exclusive. There's no getting around it, if you significantly raise the minimum wage, you get less new jobs and fewer new businesses. No doubt the number of fewer jobs is influenced by the economic conditions we're living in (boom or bust), and by how much you raise the rate, but make no mistake, you can't expect to grow the economy with that kind of minimum wage. In fact, you could expect a pretty bad depression IMHO.

Higher wages leads to more disposable income leads to higher consumer consumption leads to more job growth.

Econ 101. Increase demand and the jobs will follow.