Can we agree on a basic outline?

[The T]

The rubber will never meet the road when it comes to curbing spending with these politicians.

ALL of them need to account. Nice that they are so free with money that doesn't belong to them in the first place.

REPEAL the 16th...is the only way OUT.

 

[The T]

Long term spending and taxing rate, I suggest 19% of GDP spending 20% of GDP taxing. This will give us a 1% Surplus per year to pay down the debt.
The question isn't is this what you want, the question is would you find this acceptable.

*I* Suggest repeal of the 16th.

Followed by repeal of the 17th.

 

[SniperFire]

The question is would that goal be acceptable to you. If both sides came together and agreed that ever year they would shrink spending compared to GDP until it reached 19% would you find that acceptable.
As far as the refund thing. Sure I don't have a problem with that, although if evenly divided between all sources (personal and business) I doubt it would ever be noticeable.

No, the question is how we achieve that goal. Good intentions are squat, I want details.

By the way, you do not want to set taxes at 20% of GDP, you want to set revenue at that level.

The question is not how to achieve it.

That is ALWAYS the question.

 

[Clementine]

What I am really trying to find is a common ground on the numbers, not how to implement it. One step at a time.

Therein lies the problem. I don't see the two sides finding common ground, or at least very little. While both claim to want to reduce spending, the only cuts we got in the last three years was the equivalent of the average person saving a dime. With spending in the trillions, the few million saved was a joke.

I think everyone should pay a fair tax and it doesn't seem fair that many, including Obama's friends, pay little, if any, taxes when they are grossly wealthy. Buffet owes something like a billion and he's fighting it, yet we keep hearing about the Buffet plan. I guess that means we all fight the IRS and refuse to pay. On the other hand, it doesn't seem fair when people who pay no taxes still get a big refund. Those of us in the middle are always getting the short end of the stick.

Sorry if I sound like a grump, but I just emptied my bank account to pay federal and state taxes. Iowa taxes have gone way up and I suspect it's because of all the new freebie programs started with stimulus money. That ran out, so it's up to us workaholics to pick the tab up from here on out. They warned this would happen in many states. It sucks.

 

[SniperFire]

What I am really trying to find is a common ground on the numbers, not how to implement it. One step at a time.

You may as well say is 'what I am really trying to do is find world peace, not how to implement it. One step at a time.'

 

[auditor0007]

Long term spending and taxing rate, I suggest 19% of GDP spending 20% of GDP taxing. This will give us a 1% Surplus per year to pay down the debt.
The question isn't is this what you want, the question is would you find this acceptable.

Unfortunately, it's just unrealistic. Growth in SS and Medicare expenditures will force outlays to go well over 30% of GDP at current rates. The key is to determine a spending rate that won't destroy our economy while maintaining SS, Medicare, and most of our social programs. Over the last 60 plus years, we have spent, on average, a little over 20% of GDP in federal outlays while taking in a little over 18% of GDP. Personally, I believe we will have no choice but to increase outlays to around 23% on a regular basis. This means we must increase revenues by approximately 4% over the long haul, and this must come from all levels of income earners. Even with this type of forced increase in outlays, we will need to make substantial cuts. Without cuts, outlays will soar well above the 23% level. The bulk of those cuts will need to come from entitlement programs and possibly some from military spending. The easiest way to cut spending in entitlement programs is to raise the retirement age. This has already been done with SS, but the max age is currently only being raised to 67; it needs to be raise to 70 or 71. The age for Medicare needs to be raised as well.

Now there is an argument that many people, especially those who work in jobs that require physical labor, cannot physically work past the age of 65. The answer for these people is simple; they would go on disability until they reach retirement age. Basically, they would get early retirement. There are all different types of solutions, but until everyone is willing to sit down and figure this out, we will keep arguing about how we need to cut taxes and cut spending to the minimum, which is not going to work.

I really wish we would just vote out everyone and start over with some representatives who actually can do basic math.

 

[auditor0007]

The most reasonable budgetary plan I've yet seen is the Mack Penny plan. Balances the budget in six years and caps spending at 18%, after which we can begin to tackle the tremendous debt we've accumulated.

Rep. Mack: 'Penny Plan' Could Save Trillions - Politics - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com

The idea is a nice one, and yes it probably would work, but you would end up reducing SS and Medicare benefits drastically. In the end we are going to end up reducing those benefits. The question just becomes when and how. Despite the arguments against it, I'm convinced at some point the retirement age for SS and Medicare will be raised. It should have been done a long time ago, but now is not too late.

 

[theunbubba]

What I am really trying to find is a common ground on the numbers, not how to implement it. One step at a time.

I don't believe you. I think you are trying to get conservatives to agree to a tax increase. It's not happening. Forget it.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Long term spending and taxing rate, I suggest 19% of GDP spending 20% of GDP taxing. This will give us a 1% Surplus per year to pay down the debt.
The question isn't is this what you want, the question is would you find this acceptable.

GDP is not precise - GDP is a general assessment. In short - GDP and the formula used to equate GDP is flawed...

 

[Mr.Nick]

The government collects GDP data through tax filings...

Only 52% of the working population actually pays taxes.............

 

[BillyV]

Not all of us believe the government needs to respond to every single ******* recession.

Yes I do realize that not all of us are sane; I do realize that some of us are so stupid that they think making recessions deeper and longer are good things

Some of us are forward thinking enough to accept temporary pain rather than kick the ******* can farther down the road. Some of us are smart enough to know you can't borrow your way out of debt.

I'm not sure I agree with that assessment. There's nothing wrong with debt in and of itself; it's how the proceeds are used that matters. If a business borrows $1 million at 5% interest because it can create a 15% profit on that $1 million, that will generate $100,000 in additional funds with which to pay down its existing debt after repaying the $1 million. If it borrows the $1 million to send its executives to a golf retreat in Hawaii, not only do you lose the $100,000 you could have earned with it, you also have nothing to show for the $1 million that is still owed.The problem with government borrowing is we use the proceeds to support a lifestyle through entitlement spending that perhaps is no longer realistic relative to our production. Borrowing for consumption does not add wealth, but borrowing for investment often does. What we have is a spending problem, and the sooner we realize we cannot support every lifestyle choice, the easier it will be to dig our way out of this mess. We simply have to make smarter choices about where to spend our income to maximize wealth (assuming that's the goal). Arbitrary revenue/spending targets are of little use until that is addressed.

 

[editec]

Take a walk down memory lane and see what GREENSPAN thought of paying down the national debt.

Remember now, this is a guy who claims that he is a RANDIAN libertarian at heart, right?

UNTIL the issue of paying down the national debt seemed possible of course.



Greenspan quotes from: The Age of Turbulence (2008)

• • Of course, shedding the debt burden would be a happy development for our country, but it would nevertheless pose a big dilemma for the Fed. Our primary lever of monetary policy was buying and selling treasury securities-Uncle Sam's IOU's. But as the debt was paid down, those securities would grow scarce, leaving the Fed in need of a new set of assets to effect monetary policy.
    • Chapter Ten, "Downturn", p. 214

  • I came to a stark realization: chronic surpluses could be almost as destabilizing as chronic deficits.
    • Chapter Ten, "Downturn", p. 218

EVerything you guys think you know about what your MASTERS really want is wrong.

EVERYTHING, kiddies.

Go read a book.