The "Sane and Easy" $4 Trillion Deficit Reduction

[Flaylo]

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) .

Some money needs to be pumped into the economy to stimulate things, the question where should that money go? Tax cuts for the purpose of creating jobs is a form of "stimulus" that hasn't worked, though the supply siders don't see it that way.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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) .

That is true to a point. Expenditures on things like welfare, health care, and unemployment benefits circulate that money back through the economy and benefits businesses downstream from the recipients. Typically this money is spent upon receipt. Cutting these items would, in effect, be anti-stimulus.

Other expenditures, however, have money leaving the economy.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Actually economic experts have long stated that the best way to increase revenue is by fostering a pro-business environment, not inducing a job-killing and stifling tax-code.

It's simple mathematics that when you have more people employed you have more people paying taxes.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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'

History: F

Hoover and FDR's policies made the Depression so Great. We had an economy worse than the 7 Biblical Lean Years. That's what stupid failed Progressive ideas did.

There was a similar recession after the end of WWI and it was met with tax cuts and spending cuts and a government that let the economy restructure and reprice. In 18 months unemployment dropped from 12 to 4 percent. A year later you could not find an unemployed person in America. Thats what Conservatism did

 

[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.

Actually economic experts have long stated that the best way to increase revenue is by fostering a pro-business environment, not inducing a job-killing and stifling tax-code.

It's simple mathematics that when you have more people employed you have more people paying taxes.

That trickle down pro-business shit hasn't worked, thats evidence that what you say is bullshit.

 

[asterism]

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.

Actually economic experts have long stated that the best way to increase revenue is by fostering a pro-business environment, not inducing a job-killing and stifling tax-code.

It's simple mathematics that when you have more people employed you have more people paying taxes.

That trickle down pro-business shit hasn't worked, thats evidence that what you say is bullshit.

Using the government as a wealth redistribution agent and artificially propping up demand hasn't worked. We don't know if cutting government spending will work because it has never actually been cut.

 

[Old Rocks]

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?

And how did I know that before you even answered, Pattycake, that you value guns over the health of America's children.

 

[Mad Scientist]

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

No need to raise taxes if you're spending less money.

That trickle down pro-business shit hasn't worked, thats evidence that what you say is bullshit.

Pro business environments work. It's crony capitalism that doesn't work. Like Obama giving ObamaCare waivers to AARP.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

Well, I have the perfect solution for you, Pattycake. We make a special bill that you have to pay no taxes at all. But you will not be allowed to use any tax supported infrastructure. So the water gets cut off immediartly. Don't move that car onto the street. Don't you dare to try to use public transportation. Oh yeah, the gas and electricity is also cut off, along with the sewer. Don't bother to complain, that person you are complaining to is a government employee.

This ain't the neolithic age anymore, Pattycake. Virtually everything that you do involves government. The amount of peope living in a small area makes that a neccessity. If you want to move off and live in a cave, be my guest. Until then, you will get called on your idiotic hypocrisy.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

He also educed their maximum marginal rate to 28.5%. Do you also agree with doing that?

Of course you don't. That would be too consistent.

 

[bripat9643]

And how did I know that before you even answered, Pattycake, that you value guns over the health of America's children.

I couldn't give a damn about health of your children. You pay for them, and I'll pay for the health of my children.

The "it's for the children" shtick doesn't work anymore, knucklehead.

 

[bripat9643]

That is true to a point. Expenditures on things like welfare, health care, and unemployment benefits circulate that money back through the economy and benefits businesses downstream from the recipients. Typically this money is spent upon receipt. Cutting these items would, in effect, be anti-stimulus.

Other expenditures, however, have money leaving the economy.

We just had a $trillion dollar stimulus that only further exacerbated unemployment. The "stimulus" theory of government spending is seriously flawed. giving money to deadbeats and government employees does not "stimulate" diddly squat. Every dollar withdrawn from the economy through taxation or government borrowing destroys jobs.

 

[bripat9643]

Well, I have the perfect solution for you, Pattycake. We make a special bill that you have to pay no taxes at all. But you will not be allowed to use any tax supported infrastructure. So the water gets cut off immediartly. Don't move that car onto the street. Don't you dare to try to use public transportation. Oh yeah, the gas and electricity is also cut off, along with the sewer. Don't bother to complain, that person you are complaining to is a government employee.

Just to set you straight, however, the government doesn't provide my gas and electric. Private companies do. I wouldn't think of using public transportation. In many areas, water and sewer are provided by private firms.

This ain't the neolithic age anymore, Pattycake. Virtually everything that you do involves government. The amount of peope living in a small area makes that a neccessity. If you want to move off and live in a cave, be my guest. Until then, you will get called on your idiotic hypocrisy.

It has nothing to do with the "age." Government has usurped many functions that formerly were performed privately. Government made us dependent on it because government wants control. There certainly wasn't any economic necessity for it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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


Sounds very sensible and well articulated.

How is a FAT added to every single transaction in the country amount to an "infinitesimal" tax increase? It might seem infinitesimal to idiots who make more money than they have brains, but that will add thousands of dollars to the average persons tax bill, and they cannot afford that.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

God you're stupid. You do realize that by reducing spending and growing the economy, tax receipts will grow without tax increases?

You must be a New Yorker.

 

[DaGoose]

And how did I know that before you even answered, Pattycake, that you value guns over the health of America's children.

I couldn't give a damn about health of your children. You pay for them, and I'll pay for the health of my children.

The "it's for the children" shtick doesn't work anymore, knucklehead.

The hell it doesn't. This "rugged individualist" bullshit is what doesn't work. And if your child goes to the hospital EVERYONE else is paying if you turn it over to your insurance to pay, dumbass.

.

 

[Antiderivative]

I think that we need more wars that pay for themselves.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Sounds very sensible and well articulated.

Indeed it is.

The problem is conservative dogma won’t allow most on the right to support ‘cuts’ to defense and a ‘tax increase’ on the wealthy, the only sensible way to address the deficit. In addition, such an approach would remove political cover for the GOP with regard to cutting hated programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Their desire to cut these programs has nothing to do with deficit reduction.

Unfortunately the greatest obstacle to an effective deficit reduction program – and sound fiscal policy in general – is the House.

 

[bripat9643]

I couldn't give a damn about the health of your children. You pay for them, and I'll pay for the health of my children.

The "it's for the children" shtick doesn't work anymore, knucklehead.

The hell it doesn't. This "rugged individualist" bullshit is what doesn't work.

What does "rugged individualism" have to do with anything? The simple fact of the matter is that no philosopher has ever managed to make a credible case that I'm obligated to pay your bills. Until you can prove I have such an obligation, government social programs are nothing more than robbery.

And if your child goes to the hospital EVERYONE else is paying if you turn it over to your insurance to pay, dumbass.

No, everyone else isn't paying, dipstick. According to that dumbass theory, the government should provide everything since every time you buy something you drive the price up.

Furthermore, insurance is an entirely voluntary contractual agreement. If you don't like the terms of the deal, then don't sign the contract.

 

[bripat9643]

I think that we need more wars that pay for themselves.

What we need is fewer liberal tics sucking on the government tit.