Make your mark...spending problem or revenue problem

[mike beev]

The problem is both: the gov't does not take in enough revenue and it also spends too much: The top 1% now have about 40% of the nation's wealth and you can't have a middle class with that split, so that % needs to change via taxation. It spends too much on the unfunded war in Iraq corporate welfare, and bank bailouts.

 

[Dr.House]

Our primary problem is we spend more money than we take in. We need to address both sides of the equation to have any hope of erasing a $14 trillion debt

When that happens at home, people stop spending...

Surely you jest. I guess you didn't hear about the public's credit card spree, which has resulted in the average American STILL owing around $3,000 on old credit for "stuff" they've already charged. The whole country, including individuals were max'd out, in debt up to their eyeballs.

I'm talking about fiscally responsible people...

You want the government to be just like these maxed-out dumbasses?

I'll pass...

 

[ShackledNation]

I'm all for getting rid of earmarks, but like a private plane tax, the amounts are just too small to make a dent.

How about the funding for super rail? Department of Ed? Streamlining other departments and merging?

Super rail? No.
Department of Education? Abolish.
Streamlining other departments? Of course. And cut their budgets.

Talk about shackling a nation...Quality education and modernization are key to remaining a super power.

I agree. Quality education and modernization are very important to our economy. Which is precisely why we must abolish the Department of Education. We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the department of education, yet results have increased next to nothing. Exactly how does the department of education, which pushes one size fits all policy and violates states rights, help education?

It is a commonly perceived that spending more money on something means it will be better. That is a fatal misconception to hold.

As for high speed rail: you call that modern? It was developed decades ago, and we do not have the tracks to support such high speeds. It is an inefficient waste of money. One need only look at Amtrak to see why public transportation is a disaster. Amtrak loses $32 for every passenger. High speed rail will costs billions, will be expensive for passengers if it is not to be a perpetual drain on tax revenue, and it would still be cheaper to fly a plane or in some cases drive. Let the market decide the best form of transportation and allow for more private transportation companies.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I'm all for getting rid of earmarks, but like a private plane tax, the amounts are just too small to make a dent.

How about the funding for super rail? Department of Ed? Streamlining other departments and merging?

Super rail? No.
Department of Education? Abolish.
Streamlining other departments? Of course. And cut their budgets.

Talk about shackling a nation...Quality education and modernization are key to remaining a super power.

And you think our K-12 is a quality education?

 

[Wiseacre]

Spending is way out of control, that's the primary problem. Revenue will go up if we could get the economy going, but that's going to take a new president with a different agenda. Look, if you allow the Bush tax cuts to expire on the top 2 tiers, you only end up with about 70 billion a year in more revenue, if that much. That's just a piss in the ocean compared to a 1.6 trillion dollar deficit, so I can't see how anybody can reasonably claim that revenue is the problem.

You're assuming allowing the tax cuts to expire is the only way to more revenue. The entire tax code needs to be rewritten to remove the thousands of perks. THAT should be the first agenda item for the 2012 presidency.

I assumed no such thing, but the Bush tax cuts for the rich ARE the big part of Obama's plan to increase revenues. But you are right about the tax code, it's gotta be rewritten.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The problem is both: the gov't does not take in enough revenue and it also spends too much: The top 1% now have about 40% of the nation's wealth and you can't have a middle class with that split, so that % needs to change via taxation. It spends too much on the unfunded war in Iraq corporate welfare, and bank bailouts.

What part of the word 'primary' do you not understand?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Spending is way out of control, that's the primary problem. Revenue will go up if we could get the economy going, but that's going to take a new president with a different agenda. Look, if you allow the Bush tax cuts to expire on the top 2 tiers, you only end up with about 70 billion a year in more revenue, if that much. That's just a piss in the ocean compared to a 1.6 trillion dollar deficit, so I can't see how anybody can reasonably claim that revenue is the problem.

You're assuming allowing the tax cuts to expire is the only way to more revenue. The entire tax code needs to be rewritten to remove the thousands of perks. THAT should be the first agenda item for the 2012 presidency.

I assumed no such thing, but the Bush tax cuts for the rich ARE the big part of Obama's plan to increase revenues. But you are right about the tax code, it's gotta be rewritten.

Absolutely.
Any tax code that leaves 55% of wage earners with a negative tax burden is insanity. Any tax code that gives the greatest tax burden to the middle class is also insanity.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Not enough revenue is the primary problem. Those arguing that it's all about spending don't really understand the situation.

You don't seem to understand a simple poll.
I said PRIMARY problem. I didn't say all or none...that saying if you vote spending - then you think there is no revenue problem.

Geez...I thought people understood basic English and simple concepts.

 

[Polk]

The President can only "do" so much. As Bernanke recently said, "We're out of bullets." Time for the private sector to step up and quit whining. Only they can break the impasse now.

I'm getting really sick of Bernanke. Being too lazy to do anything else is different from not being able to do anything else.

I think he meant pulling money out of stone.

There is absolutely nothing to stop the Fed from engaging in another round of quantitative easing. There is also no logical reason the Fed should be paying interest on excess bank reserves.

 

[Polk]

Not enough revenue is the primary problem. Those arguing that it's all about spending don't really understand the situation.

You don't seem to understand a simple poll.
I said PRIMARY problem. I didn't say all or none...that saying if you vote spending - then you think there is no revenue problem.

Geez...I thought people understood basic English and simple concepts.

You didn't, but that's definitely the tone of the debate, noting that the Republicans would rather default on the national debt than raise one red cent in additional revenue.

 

[DaRose]

Divide and concor,the picture is clear to me , war is big profits for the people who benifit by death . ever play the old board game called 'Risk ? one can't control the middle east,we have placed ourselves in bankruptsy trying to fight war against people you can't identafy ,now the only path left is to rob americans who have paid into an account gerunteed by the powers for years, of thier own money - and call it an "entitlement" All THE TROOPS OUT NOW !

 

[rightwinger]

Our primary problem is we spend more money than we take in. We need to address both sides of the equation to have any hope of erasing a $14 trillion debt

You realize that is a total non-answer.
I said PRIMARY reason...as in...which is the greater problem.

If the bank was foreclosing on your house, would you ask your boss if he could cut your hours?

Thats what Republicans did when they cut taxes while we were in debt

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Not enough revenue is the primary problem. Those arguing that it's all about spending don't really understand the situation.

You don't seem to understand a simple poll.
I said PRIMARY problem. I didn't say all or none...that saying if you vote spending - then you think there is no revenue problem.

Geez...I thought people understood basic English and simple concepts.

You didn't, but that's definitely the tone of the debate, noting that the Republicans would rather default on the national debt than raise one red cent in additional revenue.

So I see you enjoy your Kool Aid blue. Your just like them.
It can also be said with equal "accuracy" that the Democrats would rather default on the national debt than spend one red cent less on runaway entitlements.

 

[Wiseacre]

You're assuming allowing the tax cuts to expire is the only way to more revenue. The entire tax code needs to be rewritten to remove the thousands of perks. THAT should be the first agenda item for the 2012 presidency.

I assumed no such thing, but the Bush tax cuts for the rich ARE the big part of Obama's plan to increase revenues. But you are right about the tax code, it's gotta be rewritten.

Absolutely.
Any tax code that leaves 55% of wage earners with a negative tax burden is insanity. Any tax code that gives the greatest tax burden to the middle class is also insanity.

Agreed, we can't be having the richest people and companies paying zero or near zero taxes. I just don't want to do it now.

 

[Immanuel]

The "Problem" is a recession fueled by a contracting economy which had been bloated with consumer debt and overvaluation of financial instruments.

But out of the two choices, it's a revenue problem. Government revenue (as percent of GDP) is at its lowest point since about 1970. Sorry to all of you who have been taught that Obama is some kind of tax-and-spend machine by unscrupulous sources. It's really just not the case.

I would agree that the recession is part of the economic problems we as a nation are facing. However, Congress overspends. Note: I said Congress not the President. I'm not blaming the President although being one of those who have suffered from the economic collapse, I would say that his Stimulus Plan did not do jack shit for those who really needed it.

Thanks for the effort Mr. President. Now do you think you can actually do something for those in this country who really need help as opposed to your buddies that put you in office?

Immie

Mark Zandi, who was an economic adviser to the McCain campaign, wrote a paper showing there would be 8.5 million fewer jobs today in the absence of the stimulus.

So?

All that tells me is that Zandi is as good at using the "jobs saved" bull shit as the President.

The Stimulus Package has done little to ease the burden of those who suffered job loss during the recession. Maybe if one wants to believe the "pie in the sky" numbers pulled out of their asses one might say well, that is 8.5 million less people on the unemployment lines, but then one would need to believe those pie in the sky numbers first.

I repeat the stimulus package did not do jack shit for those who really needed it.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

I say revenue. Republicans scream that democrats are "tax and spend," all the while THEY spend without ANY thought to how those bills are to be paid, then they blame the administration charged with cleaning up the clusterfuck they created with the pain of paying for it all.

I have to disagree with you. The problem is not revenue per se because the government could triple its revenue tomorrow and by the day after they would quadruple spending. No matter how much revenue they get in Congress does not have the discipline to spend within its means.

Immie

Whatever happened to PAYGO? No new spending programs unless offset by cuts in another.

I don't know, you tell me. The idea was obviously not considered by the President. Think Stimulus Plan and Health Care Reform as two examples.

And besides, "no new" doesn't prevent widespread spending increases on "old programs".

Although increasing revenue would help the situation, it won't help in this case because Congress is not fiscally responsible and will continue to do as they have been doing and that is to spend more than every dime they receive.

I for one am not opposed to increasing tax rates. But, if you are going to increase tax rates by 5% and follow that up with an increase in spending of 7%, you have only made the problem worse. Go ahead and raise taxes. But, damn it, Congress has to figure out that when they do that it does not mean they can just increase spending as well. There in lies the problem.

Immie

 

[Sallow]

Low taxes.

Concentration of wealth.

2 most major problems facing this nation today. There is no way that under 1000 people should control half the wealth of the nation. We are fast moving back to Monarchy. The Saudis would be jealous of this.

 

[Sallow]

I have to disagree with you. The problem is not revenue per se because the government could triple its revenue tomorrow and by the day after they would quadruple spending. No matter how much revenue they get in Congress does not have the discipline to spend within its means.

Immie

Whatever happened to PAYGO? No new spending programs unless offset by cuts in another.

I don't know, you tell me. The idea was obviously not considered by the President. Think Stimulus Plan and Health Care Reform as two examples.

And besides, "no new" doesn't prevent widespread spending increases on "old programs".

Although increasing revenue would help the situation, it won't help in this case because Congress is not fiscally responsible and will continue to do as they have been doing and that is to spend more than every dime they receive.

I for one am not opposed to increasing tax rates. But, if you are going to increase tax rates by 5% and follow that up with an increase in spending of 7%, you have only made the problem worse. Go ahead and raise taxes. But, damn it, Congress has to figure out that when they do that it does not mean they can just increase spending as well. There in lies the problem.

Immie

That's completely and utterly incorrect. President Obama tried to introduce Paygo into one of the spending bills. It was rejected by Republicans. And it was Republicans that got rid of it in the first place.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Whatever happened to PAYGO? No new spending programs unless offset by cuts in another.

I don't know, you tell me. The idea was obviously not considered by the President. Think Stimulus Plan and Health Care Reform as two examples.

And besides, "no new" doesn't prevent widespread spending increases on "old programs".

Although increasing revenue would help the situation, it won't help in this case because Congress is not fiscally responsible and will continue to do as they have been doing and that is to spend more than every dime they receive.

I for one am not opposed to increasing tax rates. But, if you are going to increase tax rates by 5% and follow that up with an increase in spending of 7%, you have only made the problem worse. Go ahead and raise taxes. But, damn it, Congress has to figure out that when they do that it does not mean they can just increase spending as well. There in lies the problem.

Immie

That's completely and utterly incorrect. President Obama tried to introduce Paygo into one of the spending bills. It was rejected by Republicans. And it was Republicans that got rid of it in the first place.

And that excuses the fact that he has outspent every President before him?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Whatever happened to PAYGO? No new spending programs unless offset by cuts in another.

I don't know, you tell me. The idea was obviously not considered by the President. Think Stimulus Plan and Health Care Reform as two examples.

And besides, "no new" doesn't prevent widespread spending increases on "old programs".

Although increasing revenue would help the situation, it won't help in this case because Congress is not fiscally responsible and will continue to do as they have been doing and that is to spend more than every dime they receive.

I for one am not opposed to increasing tax rates. But, if you are going to increase tax rates by 5% and follow that up with an increase in spending of 7%, you have only made the problem worse. Go ahead and raise taxes. But, damn it, Congress has to figure out that when they do that it does not mean they can just increase spending as well. There in lies the problem.

Immie

That's completely and utterly incorrect. President Obama tried to introduce Paygo into one of the spending bills. It was rejected by Republicans. And it was Republicans that got rid of it in the first place.

Abd BTW - I can't believe that you think that the biggest problem is taxes aren't high enough.