The "Sane and Easy" $4 Trillion Deficit Reduction

[Flaylo]

Paul Abrams: The "Sane and Easy" $4 Trillion Deficit Reduction


Sounds very sensible and well articulated.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

 

[Flaylo]

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.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

 

[Flaylo]

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.

Idiot, what is it about about basic math and common damn sense don't you understand? You axquire debt by not bringing in or enough revenue while spending what you don't have so the only way to reverse it is to cut what you spending and bring in more revenue, cutting alone will not do the job, especially when money needs to be spent.

 

[Mad Scientist]

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.

 

[Flaylo]

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.

Only an idiot thinks spending cuts alone without raising taxes will fix the deficit.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Step number one in first aid.

Stop the bleeding.

 

[Flaylo]

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.

 

[DaGoose]

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?

Because maybe that's part of what it's gonna take to get us back on track. Actually, there's no maybe about it. Anyone who thinks that it can be solved with no tax increases or cuts in the military is dreaming.

.

 

[midcan5]

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'

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Pentagon has lost $2.3 trillion and loses about one fourth of its money every year. HUD has lost $1.1 trillion. May we assume that other departments experience similar loses?

Stop the bleeding. This is serious money.

 

[Dot Com]

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.

Greenspan agrees: Alan Greenspan: Repeal the Bush Tax Cuts Completely - DailyFinance

 

[P F Tinmore]

End the Fed.

That is a completely useless expense.

 

[Flaylo]

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.

I agree only as much as getting the troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq, most of the money goes there, but overseas assignments shouldn't be totally done away with. Get rid of the aid to Egypt, Pakistan, and Israel.

 

[sparky]

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'

 

[Flaylo]

better yet, do what Ronald Reagan did, end the tax shelters and other loopholes for the wealthy and make them pay their fair fucking share.

 

[editec]

As our government cuts spending it reduces the amount of money going into circulation in the economy.

That will further decrease the velocity of the remaining money in circulation, thus further depressing US businesses.

Now in the long run reducing spending is obviously a good idea.

But in the short run reducing spending will further exacerbate the recession

(yeah yeah I know what recession, editec? the recession that the people are having, not the recession that the macro-economy is no statistically speaking no longer having) .