Flaylo
Handsome Devil
Paul Abrams: The "Sane and Easy" $4 Trillion Deficit Reduction
Sounds very sensible and well articulated.
Sounds very sensible and well articulated.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Paul Abrams: The "Sane and Easy" $4 Trillion Deficit Reduction
Sounds very sensible and well articulated.
Might be if the figures added up.
The sane and easy deficit reduction method would be to cut spending. I cant imagine why you think we should waste money we don't have. But seriously, there is no need to make this more complicated than it needs to be.
Man, you are so damn retarded that you must be from Jersey, cutting spending is only one way of reducing deficit, but the retards from the right see it as the only ways, quite simply put, you must reduce what you spend plus bring in more money to offset a deficit. If a company has a 5 million dollar deficit and spending cuts will only take away about 1 million dollars of that deficit 4 million must still be accounted for by bringing in more money which means revenue must be increased and in the case of the government bringing in more revenue means raising taxes, it is inevitable that it must happen, no way of getting around it.
Man, you are so damn retarded that you must be from Jersey, cutting spending is only one way of reducing deficit, but the retards from the right see it as the only ways, quite simply put, you must reduce what you spend plus bring in more money to offset a deficit. If a company has a 5 million dollar deficit and spending cuts will only take away about 1 million dollars of that deficit 4 million must still be accounted for by bringing in more money which means revenue must be increased and in the case of the government bringing in more revenue means raising taxes, it is inevitable that it must happen, no way of getting around it.
Only a liberal nitwit would claim there is some absolute limit on spending cuts. As long as your spending above zero, you have spending you can cut. There's a difference between cuts that libtards don't want to make and an absolute limit on spending cuts. The later is purely a liberal delusion.
Only an idiot thinks the government will save money by spending it.The IRS reports that there is 300 Billion in uncollected taxes annually. Republicans de-fund the IRS so the money cannot be collected. This is an unvoted upon tax-cut of massive size that goes mostly to the wealthy. If we provide proper funding, let us assume that only 2/3 could actually efficiently found and recovered. That amounts to $2 trillion over a decade.
Only an idiot thinks the government will save money by spending it.The IRS reports that there is 300 Billion in uncollected taxes annually. Republicans de-fund the IRS so the money cannot be collected. This is an unvoted upon tax-cut of massive size that goes mostly to the wealthy. If we provide proper funding, let us assume that only 2/3 could actually efficiently found and recovered. That amounts to $2 trillion over a decade.
Paul Abrams: The "Sane and Easy" $4 Trillion Deficit Reduction
Sounds very sensible and well articulated.
How did I know before I even read it that the solution would consist of tax increases and cuts in the military?
Imagine if instead of building America during the great depression, FDR had cut spending, or if Eisenhower had said let's not build highways, or the transcontinental railroad was not built or any number of dams and bridges and tunnels and schools and support for medicine had never occurred? Reading the conservatives today one can quickly see why in power they fail the country so miserably. If conservatism was widely followed we'd still be living in caves howling at the moon,
"Something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today. For thirty years we have made a virtue out of the pursuit of material self-interest: indeed, this very pursuit now constitutes whatever remains of our sense of collective purpose. We know what things cost but have no idea what they are worth. We no longer ask of a judicial ruling or a legislative act: is it good? Is it fair? Is it just? Is it right? Will it help bring about a better society or a better world? Those used to be the political questions, even if they invited no easy answers. We must learn once again to pose them." Tony Judt 'Ill Fares the Land'
Step number one in first aid.
Stop the bleeding.
Deficits and first aid are two different things, bottom line spending cuts alone will not fix budgets, increass in revenue are needed.
Imagine if instead of building America during the great depression, FDR had cut spending, or if Eisenhower had said let's not build highways, or the transcontinental railroad was not built or any number of dams and bridges and tunnels and schools and support for medicine had never occurred? Reading the conservatives today one can quickly see why in power they fail the country so miserably. If conservatism was widely followed we'd still be living in caves howling at the moon,
"Something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today. For thirty years we have made a virtue out of the pursuit of material self-interest: indeed, this very pursuit now constitutes whatever remains of our sense of collective purpose. We know what things cost but have no idea what they are worth. We no longer ask of a judicial ruling or a legislative act: is it good? Is it fair? Is it just? Is it right? Will it help bring about a better society or a better world? Those used to be the political questions, even if they invited no easy answers. We must learn once again to pose them." Tony Judt 'Ill Fares the Land'
Actually, one of the proposals of most of the last presidential candidates (but not Obama or McCain) was to close all foreign military bases and bring all troops home. Then all the money we spend overseas for facilities and the money spent by personnel would be spent here.
This would be a continuous "stimulus package" that would cost us no additional money. This would create jobs and grow the tax base increasing revenues without a tax increase.
BTW, this would decrease welfare expenses.
Imagine if instead of building America during the great depression, FDR had cut spending, or if Eisenhower had said let's not build highways, or the transcontinental railroad was not built or any number of dams and bridges and tunnels and schools and support for medicine had never occurred? Reading the conservatives today one can quickly see why in power they fail the country so miserably. If conservatism was widely followed we'd still be living in caves howling at the moon,
"Something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today. For thirty years we have made a virtue out of the pursuit of material self-interest: indeed, this very pursuit now constitutes whatever remains of our sense of collective purpose. We know what things cost but have no idea what they are worth. We no longer ask of a judicial ruling or a legislative act: is it good? Is it fair? Is it just? Is it right? Will it help bring about a better society or a better world? Those used to be the political questions, even if they invited no easy answers. We must learn once again to pose them." Tony Judt 'Ill Fares the Land'