Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Cut spending?
First thing is to put teeth into fraud laws on medicare and such.
Make the finiancial fine for medicare, etc fraud to be 200% of the wamount that the govt was defrauded. No more of this just a cost of doing business.
Cut off 25% of foreign military bases.
Cut off all corporate welfare. Including farm subsidies and such.
Pull troops from Afganistan and Iraq.
Reduce sixe of military by 25%. We would still be the worlds largest in terms of spending.
Increase benefits age for SS benefits and raise the withholding. Also do not allow any surplus to be spent.
Allow Medicare Pard D to bargain for prescription drug prices even going out of country to obtain cheaper drugs.
Make gas tax a percentage of gas price not a flat per gal tax to enable the tax to provide for road upkeep.
Pass a flat income tax on ALL personal income with no deductions.
Yes this went beyond cuts but more than just cuts is needed.
Almost all of this is raising taxes and cutting defense. Very little of it is actually feasible, politically speaking. I like the idea of the flat tax with no deductions and getting tougher on medicare cheats.
Ahh you hit on the main reason we are where we are. Political feasability.
We need logic and reason not politics.
What spending cuts are the dems willing to make?
Cut tax breaks to billionaires for one.
We know that Obama's 1st budget got shot down in the Senate with no votes at all for it. He has not put forth another one, nor has the dems inthe House or the Senate to compare with the House budget. They talk about reducing spending, how are they planning to do that? What do they think can be cut? And what kind of leadership doesn't put up an alternative budget? That's lame guys, really lame.
What spending cuts are the dems willing to make?
Cut tax breaks to billionaires for one.
There's only one spending cut that the Dems are every willing to make, and that's to national defense...but they are always willing to wage "kinetic military actions" off budget.
Throwing bombs at Ryan's plan without offering any details about your own budget does not qualify as leadership.
Throwing bombs at Ryan's plan without offering any details about your own budget does not qualify as leadership.
Agreed. I mean, as terrible as Ryan's plan is, simply attacking it without offering alternatives doesn't help too much. Although, for the record, doing nothing is a better alternative to the Ryan "Budget".
I wonder if the Dems aren't putting forth a budget full of cuts because they know cuts at this time would be very bad for the economy. With the GOP crying (literally) over cuts, how do the Dems step into that conversation saying the opposite is what we need? It's tough.
Throwing bombs at Ryan's plan without offering any details about your own budget does not qualify as leadership.
Agreed. I mean, as terrible as Ryan's plan is, simply attacking it without offering alternatives doesn't help too much. Although, for the record, doing nothing is a better alternative to the Ryan "Budget".
I wonder if the Dems aren't putting forth a budget full of cuts because they know cuts at this time would be very bad for the economy. With the GOP crying (literally) over cuts, how do the Dems step into that conversation saying the opposite is what we need? It's tough.
Throwing bombs at Ryan's plan without offering any details about your own budget does not qualify as leadership.
Agreed. I mean, as terrible as Ryan's plan is, simply attacking it without offering alternatives doesn't help too much. Although, for the record, doing nothing is a better alternative to the Ryan "Budget".
I wonder if the Dems aren't putting forth a budget full of cuts because they know cuts at this time would be very bad for the economy. With the GOP crying (literally) over cuts, how do the Dems step into that conversation saying the opposite is what we need? It's tough.
Throwing bombs at Ryan's plan without offering any details about your own budget does not qualify as leadership.
Agreed. I mean, as terrible as Ryan's plan is, simply attacking it without offering alternatives doesn't help too much. Although, for the record, doing nothing is a better alternative to the Ryan "Budget".
I wonder if the Dems aren't putting forth a budget full of cuts because they know cuts at this time would be very bad for the economy. With the GOP crying (literally) over cuts, how do the Dems step into that conversation saying the opposite is what we need? It's tough.
I'd argue your assertion that Ryan's plan is worse than doing nothing, at least it gets the spending under control. Personally, I don't think we shold be making huge cuts in spending this year or next FY, but there's gotta be some reduction over the next decade plus a mechanism to stop gov't discretionary spending at some level. No tax hikes either, now is not the time. I do like the flat tax idea, or at least finding ways to cut tax breaks, deductions, and subsidies from the tax code, IF you also lower the tax rate.
The Problem with the Way Liberals think is very simple. They do not think we have a spending Problem, They think we simply need more Revenue. Nothing is going to change in this country until they wake up to the fact that no matter how high you raise taxes, no matter how much more Money you bring in. DC will spend beyond it. The only way to force DC to spend less, is to send them less.
The Problem with the Way Liberals think is very simple. They do not think we have a spending Problem, They think we simply need more Revenue. Nothing is going to change in this country until they wake up to the fact that no matter how high you raise taxes, no matter how much more Money you bring in. DC will spend beyond it. The only way to force DC to spend less, is to send them less.
For the record, revenues are ridiculously low right now. If we had rates like we had under Clinton, we could get 19% of GDP, which would be $2.8T and then the deficit would be down to $800B or so. Much more manageable.
But I'm curious about your statement " no matter how much more Money you bring in. DC will spend beyond it." Obviously DC has spent within its means before, and within our lifetime (well, mine at least, you might be 9). What is different now that leads you to believe they cannot spend within their means any more?
What spending cuts are the dems willing to make?
Cut tax breaks to billionaires for one.
That's not a spending cut, turd.
U.S. Treasury Department officials say that without additional borrowing authority, the government will run out of cash to pay its bills by Aug. 2. They warn that defaulting on any U.S. obligations could trigger another financial crisis and recession.
While the talks were on hold, a small political party claiming to represent "a synthesis of the Republican, Democratic, Libertarian and Green parties" proposed "a minimal 50-cent transaction fee on all stock trades" as a way of raising money.
"This simple action will generate approximately $300 billion a year," the Light Party said in a statement.
The party, which has headquarters in Mill Valley, Calif., near San Francisco, also proposed "a flat tax on currency movements as proposed by [late] Nobel laureate [economist] James Tobin of Yale University."
"A small levy of 1 percent would have virtually no effect on global capital flow and will generate $3 trillion annually for sustainable international economic development," the party said.
Its proposals are listed as part of a "synergistic" seven-point program the party asserts can "resolve our current socioeconomic and ecological challenges."
What spending cuts are the dems willing to make?
Cut tax breaks to billionaires for one.
That's not a spending cut, turd.
Sure it is, the tax cuts have reduced revenue as sure as if we'd spent the money. End the tax breaks for the wealthy and end that wastful spending.
Here's another;
Obama to step in on tax, debt impasse - UPI.com
U.S. Treasury Department officials say that without additional borrowing authority, the government will run out of cash to pay its bills by Aug. 2. They warn that defaulting on any U.S. obligations could trigger another financial crisis and recession.
While the talks were on hold, a small political party claiming to represent "a synthesis of the Republican, Democratic, Libertarian and Green parties" proposed "a minimal 50-cent transaction fee on all stock trades" as a way of raising money.
"This simple action will generate approximately $300 billion a year," the Light Party said in a statement.
The party, which has headquarters in Mill Valley, Calif., near San Francisco, also proposed "a flat tax on currency movements as proposed by [late] Nobel laureate [economist] James Tobin of Yale University."
"A small levy of 1 percent would have virtually no effect on global capital flow and will generate $3 trillion annually for sustainable international economic development," the party said.
Its proposals are listed as part of a "synergistic" seven-point program the party asserts can "resolve our current socioeconomic and ecological challenges."
Why do the neo-cons think all we need to do is reduce spending?
A. Tax receipts are off because the economy is in the crapper.
B. Clinton did not have a surplus or run a surplus, he left $5.8 trillion in debt.
That's not a spending cut, turd.
Sure it is, the tax cuts have reduced revenue as sure as if we'd spent the money. End the tax breaks for the wealthy and end that wastful spending.
Here's another;
Obama to step in on tax, debt impasse - UPI.com
U.S. Treasury Department officials say that without additional borrowing authority, the government will run out of cash to pay its bills by Aug. 2. They warn that defaulting on any U.S. obligations could trigger another financial crisis and recession.
While the talks were on hold, a small political party claiming to represent "a synthesis of the Republican, Democratic, Libertarian and Green parties" proposed "a minimal 50-cent transaction fee on all stock trades" as a way of raising money.
"This simple action will generate approximately $300 billion a year," the Light Party said in a statement.
The party, which has headquarters in Mill Valley, Calif., near San Francisco, also proposed "a flat tax on currency movements as proposed by [late] Nobel laureate [economist] James Tobin of Yale University."
"A small levy of 1 percent would have virtually no effect on global capital flow and will generate $3 trillion annually for sustainable international economic development," the party said.
Its proposals are listed as part of a "synergistic" seven-point program the party asserts can "resolve our current socioeconomic and ecological challenges."
Why do the neo-cons think all we need to do is reduce spending?
Why do the Fabian Socialists think all we need to do is jack up tax rates?
I'd argue your assertion that Ryan's plan is worse than doing nothing, at least it gets the spending under control.
A. Tax receipts are off because the economy is in the crapper.
B. Clinton did not have a surplus or run a surplus, he left $5.8 trillion in debt.
A) Tax receipts dropped three years straight after the Bush tax cuts and have never recovered.
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary
B) If you want to use budget tricks to rob Clinton of his surplus, fine, but we had balanced budgets in the 50s and 60s when tax rates were ridiculously higher.
So what's changed?
Sure it is, the tax cuts have reduced revenue as sure as if we'd spent the money. End the tax breaks for the wealthy and end that wastful spending.
Here's another;
Obama to step in on tax, debt impasse - UPI.com
Why do the neo-cons think all we need to do is reduce spending?
Why do the Fabian Socialists think all we need to do is jack up tax rates?
The democrats are trying to do both while the myopic republican view is an obstacle to recovery.
Are the republicans still trying to hold the middle class hostage?
Why do they oppose an increase in revenue along with spending cuts?
