Taxes will have to be increased on us all, if U.S. Government wants to survive.

[Paulie]

cut all foreign aid.....close all foreign military bases......no more state projects paid for by the feds......

presto......surplus.....

I don't ever remember seeing you say anything in support of Ron Paul during his campaign, but yet you propose a policy that is exactly what he ran on, and the only Republican in the field even CLOSE to doing so during the race.

Did I miss something, or did you just garner a new viewpoint?

 

[jreeves]

You're only totalling the DoD's budget, which actually you were high on. I think Bush's DoD budget for 2008 is in the high 400's. But there is a total of over 600 billion for all of the military's expenditures, some coming from different dept's.

I may be wrong about 400 billion of waste there, but I have no doubt that 200 billion worth of wasteful worldwide military presence could be cut. I'm sure 300-400 could at least be cut from entitlements, giving us a surplus.

This doesn't include cuts in the bureaucracy as well, as there are a few cabinet dept's that could stand to go.

We should be surplussing every fucking year. I'm ecstatic to see you admit that our worldwide military presence could be toned down, btw.



I simply can't endorse such an idea. Do you stop paying some of your bills?

Paying off debt is being responsible. The point is to stop INCURRING it any further. It needs to be paid down. But then, that's what inflation is for, and we can see that inflation is certainly a sought after occurance these days.

Maybe you can't comprehend what almost 10 trillion dollars of debt really is, but that simply needs to stop NOW, or we're going to pay a dear price for it, whether you're willing to accept that idea or not.

We can't change that we were too stupid to keep it from happening, but we certainly can't ignore it and let it fester. It needs to be paid down, just like YOUR bills need to be paid down.

If there's ANYTHING worth using a surplus from spending cuts on, it's our debt. It's the fiscally responsible thing to do.

I wasn't saying to stop paying the debt. We need to post budget surpluses which would shrink the third largest expenditure, national debt payments. I believe the most likely collapse of the U.S. will be from the national debt, not foreign governments or terrorists. In effect, we would destroy ourselves, by overspending.

 

[editec]

Republicans and Democrats have stolen from Social Security. If needs be I will provide links? We need to operate a bare minimum government, by doing so, we would keep governmental waste to a minimum and leave money in the hands of people who can actually improve our country.

Absolutely no argument on that front from me.

You're probably assuming, since I faulted St, Ronnie for lying to the American people, that I therefore think the Dems are NOT just as responsible as he was. they are.

The Dems signed onto those tax increases (and spending) when Ronnie was in office, too, did they not?

Just because I point out the warts on a Republican myth, doesn't mean I don't see the warts on the Dems' myths, too.

But the Republicans like to claim they are fiscal conservatives.

THAT is the BIG LIE I was talking about.

 

[Paulie]

I wasn't saying to stop paying the debt. We need to post budget surpluses which would shrink the third largest expenditure, national debt payments. I believe the most likely collapse of the U.S. will be from the national debt, not foreign governments or terrorists. In effect, we would destroy ourselves, by overspending.

Ok then I misunderstood what you were trying to say. It sounded like you were saying to cut back on national debt payments. Although, I'd much rather use every last dime of surplus on national debt payments, myself. With maybe some allocated to infrastructure as well.

I completely agree with you about the debt causing a collapse. But I find it curious that you have a been an adamant denier of the possibility of a depression in the foreseeable future, when you say the national debt would be the cause of collapse in this country, considering no one is doing anything to stop the run-up on the debt as it is. Just how much debt do you think the country can handle before it would cause a collapse? I'd say we passed that point years ago.

I don't understand how more conservatives didn't get behind Ron Paul, considering he was the only candidate in the field you knew you could trust to keep his word. He could have immediately scaled back the empire, merely because he was the CiC. Then he could have rallied the American public, particularly the conservatives, to start caring more and taking more responsibility THEMSELVES. He wouldn't be advocating even MORE power going to the Fed either, which this administration is trying to do. The Fed is going to be the DEATH of this country, not the saving grace.

But alas, we're forced to deal with far left, or fake conservative establishment lacky. Like John McCain, the career DC politician, is going to do anything to help matters. Sure, he may veto pork bills, but he'll most likely be expanding the military empire into more countries which is only going to cancel out the pork savings.

I believe either one of our choices this year is going to be the final nail in this country's coffin. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[editec]

We can always deal with our national debts by printing more money.

Worked pretty well for the Wiemar Republic, didn't it?

They paid the French reparations with a lot of worthless paper and then they rearmed their nation and kicked some ass until they bite off more than they could chew by attacking Russia.

Sure the Saudi's won't sell us their oil, and sure WALMARTS won't be able to sell us crap from the third world, but hey...is that really an entirely bad thing?

I'm not ENTIRELY sure that it would be as bad as the American people being perpetually in debt to foreignors which is where we're headed if we don't do something to deal with this problem.

 

[Paulie]

We can always deal with our national debts by printing more money.

Worked pretty well for the Wiemar Republic, didn't it?

They paid the French reparations with a lot of worthless paper and then they rearmed their nation and kicked some ass until they bite off more than they could chew by attacking Russia.

Sure the Saudi's won't sell us their oil, and sure WALMARTS won't be able to sell us crap from the third world, but hey...is that really an entirely bad thing?

I'm not ENTIRELY sure that it would be as bad as the American people being perpetually in debt to foreignors which is where we're headed if we don't do something to deal with this problem.

Runaway inflation is no better than runaway debt, and using one to fix the other is counter-productive to say the least, not to mention a fiscal detriment.

What is most important for our economic future is sound, responsible monetary policy advocating a stronger dollar, and maintaining balanced budgets.

I'd love to see currency competition allowed as well, but for now I won't hold my breath and simply lobby for those main two I mentioned.

 

[Gunny]

You're only totalling the DoD's budget, which actually you were high on. I think Bush's DoD budget for 2008 is in the high 400's. But there is a total of over 600 billion for all of the military's expenditures, some coming from different dept's.

I may be wrong about 400 billion of waste there, but I have no doubt that 200 billion worth of wasteful worldwide military presence could be cut. I'm sure 300-400 could at least be cut from entitlements, giving us a surplus.

This doesn't include cuts in the bureaucracy as well, as there are a few cabinet dept's that could stand to go.

We should be surplussing every fucking year. I'm ecstatic to see you admit that our worldwide military presence could be toned down, btw.



I simply can't endorse such an idea. Do you stop paying some of your bills?

Paying off debt is being responsible. The point is to stop INCURRING it any further. It needs to be paid down. But then, that's what inflation is for, and we can see that inflation is certainly a sought after occurance these days.

Maybe you can't comprehend what almost 10 trillion dollars of debt really is, but that simply needs to stop NOW, or we're going to pay a dear price for it, whether you're willing to accept that idea or not.

We can't change that we were too stupid to keep it from happening, but we certainly can't ignore it and let it fester. It needs to be paid down, just like YOUR bills need to be paid down.

If there's ANYTHING worth using a surplus from spending cuts on, it's our debt. It's the fiscally responsible thing to do.

You want to cut military entitlements? Won't work. Those entitlements are all that make the difference between military personnel being able to survive or not. There's something wrong with a country thats military personnel require social subsistence programs to survive.

And entitlements have already been cut, and re-cut. Clinton almost put me in bankruptcy and I was squeezing Abe Lincoln 'til he squealed for a few years.

You cut those entitlements any more and you'll just end up spending them at the other end in the form of welfare, foodstamps and WIC.

 

[Paulie]

You want to cut military entitlements? Won't work. Those entitlements are all that make the difference between military personnel being able to survive or not. There's something wrong with a country thats military personnel require social subsistence programs to survive.

And entitlements have already been cut, and re-cut. Clinton almost put me in bankruptcy and I was squeezing Abe Lincoln 'til he squealed for a few years.

You cut those entitlements any more and you'll just end up spending them at the other end in the form of welfare, foodstamps and WIC.

No, when I said entitlements in that post, I meant social entitlements. Welfare, medicare, etc.

I said we could cut at least 200 billion out of the total military budget, and we could also cut at LEAST an additional 300-400 billion out of what I consider to be unconstitutional social entitlements.

Sorry if it was misleading. I would never want to cut benefits from the military personnel. I think they're underpaid to begin with, especially when you compare their salaries to their private sector counterparts.

A buddy of mine made over $100,000 in Afghanistan last year doing fiber-optic telecommunications that the military personnel were getting paid their base salaries to perform the same exact work for.

Good for my buddy, but bad for the military personnel. I admit that more often than not, military service is a thankless job. Besides the obligatory "thank you" you might get from citizens. I don't know about you, but that meant something to me maybe the first or second time I got one, but eventually it started losing its luster as I languished in financial trouble dealing with a petty $1,100/mo in base income, with no BAS or BAH as I was single and living on base.

 

[Gunny]

No, when I said entitlements in that post, I meant social entitlements. Welfare, medicare, etc.

I said we could cut at least 200 billion out of the total military budget, and we could also cut at LEAST an additional 300-400 billion out of what I consider to be unconstitutional social entitlements.

Sorry if it was misleading. I would never want to cut benefits from the military personnel. I think they're underpaid to begin with, especially when you compare their salaries to their private sector counterparts.

A buddy of mine made over $100,000 in Afghanistan last year doing fiber-optic telecommunications that the military personnel were getting paid their base salaries to perform the same exact work for.

Good for my buddy, but bad for the military personnel. I admit that more often than not, military service is a thankless job. Besides the obligatory "thank you" you might get from citizens. I don't know about you, but that meant something to me maybe the first or second time I got one, but eventually it started losing its luster as I languished in financial trouble dealing with a petty $1,100/mo in base income, with no BAS or BAH as I was single and living on base.

Okay. I misinterpreted what you said.

 

[editec]

Runaway inflation is no better than runaway debt, and using one to fix the other is counter-productive to say the least, not to mention a fiscal detriment.

Is it? Are you 100% certain of that? How do you know?

I am not entirely certain that runaway inflation is bad for everyone.

I am certain it is truly a bad thing for those holding a lot of long term notes with fixed rates, and those on fixed incomes which do not adjust for inflation.

I am equally certain that runaway inflation is a good thing for those oweing debts which are long term at fixed rates of repayment.

I am not at all certain that those who are holding assets with intrensic value will be much harmed by a bout of serious inflation, either.

Runaway inflation is inconvenient, though, I'll grant you that.

What is most important for our economic future is sound, responsible monetary policy advocating a stronger dollar, and maintaining balanced budgets.

That would be an excellent idea if that black-and-red ink horse hadn't already escaped the fiscal gate.

I'd love to see currency competition allowed as well, but for now I won't hold my breath and simply lobby for those main two I mentioned.

I'm not sure what "currency competition" is. Is that a situation where one can use any currency to pay one's taxes, or something?

One where there is no offically recognized legal tender?

If so, then I'll start cranking out Editec Bucks this evening.

 

[Paulie]

Is it? Are you 100% certain of that? How do you know?

I am not entirely certain that runaway inflation is bad for everyone.

I am certain it is truly a bad thing for those holding a lot of long term notes with fixed rates, and those on fixed incomes which do not adjust for inflation.

I am equally certain that runaway inflation is a good thing for those oweing debts which are long term at fixed rates of repayment.

I am not at all certain that those who are holding assets with intrensic value will be much harmed by a bout of serious inflation, either.

Runaway inflation is inconvenient, though, I'll grant you that.



That would be an excellent idea if that black-and-red ink horse hadn't already escaped the fiscal gate.



I'm not sure what "currency competition" is. Is that a situation where one can use any currency to pay one's taxes, or something?

One where there is no offically recognized legal tender?

If so, then I'll start cranking out Editec Bucks this evening.

Inflation kills purchasing power, and punishes savers. It only ends up encouraging debt, as debt can be repaid the same way with inflated, less valuable dollars as it can with dollars of increasing value.

I see a lack of responsible savings, and a desire to be as in debt as possible, as one of the biggest problems this country will face in its economic future.

I blame inflation for it. So yeah, I believe neither inflation nor debt are productive. You can't just rack up huge debt, and then encourage inflation just because it helps pay the debt. The debt shouldn't be as bad to begin with, thereby cancelling out the need for the inflation.

And what I mean by competing currencies, is allowing more than just the FRN to be considered legal tender, and letting the market decide the best currency. I'm willing to bet that eventually, when the public started catching on, they'd gravitate toward a more sound currency than the fiat FRN.

For example, why did Liberty Dollar get raided? It was never meant to be a legal tender currency, only an alternate means of trade that businesses were free to either participate in or not.

It wasn't until they started minting Ron Paul coins, that they got raided. The Treasury Dept themselves even stated in the past that it was perfectly legal, as long as it was never marked as "legal tender for all debts", which it never was, nor did it resemble any actual legal tender currency in any way, shape, or form.

 

[007]

The United States Government will eventually have to increase Taxes, if it really wants to have a stable government into the future. With the price of everything on the rise, a policy of tax cuts may come back to hurt the economy of the United States at some point in the future.

And where do the tax increases end? When the government takes ALL our money? At what point should the people stand up and say, "that's enough, you don't get any more?" Are we PAST that point?

If the government cut out ALL PORK, scraped our old tax code and went to a flat tax or a fair tax, they'd have more money than they've ever had before. Maybe they could start to pay off some of our national debt with the surplus. Our government is more irresponsible with money than a drunken bum in need of a jug of wine and a bag of Bull Durham.

If you think our government is in need of raising our taxes to survive, now, with no end, then we're fucked. The day will come when they take ALL your money. Kiss freedom goodbye.

 

[Paulie]

And where do the tax increases end? When the government takes ALL our money? At what point should the people stand up and say, "that's enough, you don't get any more?" Are we PAST that point?

If the government cut out ALL PORK, scraped our old tax code and went to a flat tax or a fair tax, they'd have more money than they've ever had before. Maybe they could start to pay off some of our national debt with the surplus. Our government is more irresponsible with money than a drunken bum in need of a jug of wine and a bag of Bull Durham.

If you think our government is in need of raising our taxes to survive, now, with no end, then we're fucked. The day will come when they take ALL your money. Kiss freedom goodbye.

I think the overlying point was that somehow this budget deficit needs to be balanced. If they're not going to cut spending, then they need to raise taxes. Deficits most certainly DO matter.

I'm in favor of as little spending and as little taxes as possible, but I'm also in favor of a balanced budget however it needs to be accomplished. I'd be ok with taxes being raised for a time, so long as spending levels were not increased. But sooner or later the out of control spending needs to stop.

I like the flat tax a lot, but I'd much rather see spending come down to levels where that tax revenue isn't even necessary. There's no reason we can't cut spending to levels where an income tax or a flat tax are not even required.

 

[Steerpike]

The United States Government will eventually have to increase Taxes, if it really wants to have a stable governemt into the future. With the price of
everything on the rise, a policy of Tax cuts,may come back to hurt the economy of the United States, at some point in the future.

This is sheer nonsense. The U.S. Government wastes massive amounts of money. That is where the focus should be. Solve that problem and the government will have more than enough money to do what it needs to do.

 

[007]

I think the overlying point was that somehow this budget deficit needs to be balanced. If they're not going to cut spending, then they need to raise taxes. Deficits most certainly DO matter.

I'm in favor of as little spending and as little taxes as possible, but I'm also in favor of a balanced budget however it needs to be accomplished. I'd be ok with taxes being raised for a time, so long as spending levels were not increased. But sooner or later the out of control spending needs to stop.

I like the flat tax a lot, but I'd much rather see spending come down to levels where that tax revenue isn't even necessary. There's no reason we can't cut spending to levels where an income tax or a flat tax are not even required.

Even though you're a libertarian, you still advocate a tax increase? *Picks self up off floor*...

How many times I ask, do taxes have to be increased? How many times in the history of America have we already been here? Not enough? One more time? Or taxes will just keep being increased until the government has ALL our money?

There needs to be an END! Or you can kiss your precious liberties goodbye. What good is freedom if you don't have a penny to enjoy it? Our government is out of control. It needs to be reigned in, and Ron Paul knows that. I like Ron Paul. If you're going to be an example of "paulitcs," I think you better reread his website. He is NOT for any more tax increases. He IS for smaller government and drastic cuts in spending.

 

[Paulie]

Even though you're a libertarian, you still advocate a tax increase? *Picks self up off floor*...

How many times I ask, do taxes have to be increased? How many times in the history of America have we already been here? Not enough? One more time? Or taxes will just keep being increased until the government has ALL our money?

There needs to be an END! Or you can kiss your precious liberties goodbye. What good is freedom if you don't have a penny to enjoy it? Our government is out of control. It needs to be reigned in, and Ron Paul knows that. I like Ron Paul. If you're going to be an example of "paulitcs," I think you better reread his website. He is NOT for any more tax increases. He IS for smaller government and drastic cuts in spending.

The ONLY reason I would be for tax increases, or rather no further tax cuts, would be if spending was not cut. How much of a deficit are you willing to incur? How much more money are you willing to borrow from other countries, or print out of thin air? This is the reason I disagreed with Bush's tax cuts, and it's also the reason McCain disagreed with them originally, before he had to pander.

I'll never vote for a politician who advocates raising taxes. I'll always pick a candidate who advocates cutting spending. But I can't endorse a move on either item that doesn't leave a balanced budget in the end.

If you want a balanced budget, sometihng has to give. Either spending has to be cut, or taxes have to be raised/not cut. If it becomes clear that spending is not going to be cut, how far into deficit are you willing to go just for your ideological position on taxes?

Just be sure never to forget that I am always for cutting spending FIRST. Then you deal with taxes.

And just because Ron Paul advocates something, doesn't mean I completely support it blindly. I'm not married to the dude, I just admire his ethics and his politics in general, and saw him as the only one who would actually have come through on certain important promises.

 

[jreeves]

Ok then I misunderstood what you were trying to say. It sounded like you were saying to cut back on national debt payments. Although, I'd much rather use every last dime of surplus on national debt payments, myself. With maybe some allocated to infrastructure as well.

I completely agree with you about the debt causing a collapse. But I find it curious that you have a been an adamant denier of the possibility of a depression in the foreseeable future, when you say the national debt would be the cause of collapse in this country, considering no one is doing anything to stop the run-up on the debt as it is. Just how much debt do you think the country can handle before it would cause a collapse? I'd say we passed that point years ago.

I don't understand how more conservatives didn't get behind Ron Paul, considering he was the only candidate in the field you knew you could trust to keep his word. He could have immediately scaled back the empire, merely because he was the CiC. Then he could have rallied the American public, particularly the conservatives, to start caring more and taking more responsibility THEMSELVES. He wouldn't be advocating even MORE power going to the Fed either, which this administration is trying to do. The Fed is going to be the DEATH of this country, not the saving grace.

But alas, we're forced to deal with far left, or fake conservative establishment lacky. Like John McCain, the career DC politician, is going to do anything to help matters. Sure, he may veto pork bills, but he'll most likely be expanding the military empire into more countries which is only going to cancel out the pork savings.

I believe either one of our choices this year is going to be the final nail in this country's coffin. I hope I'm wrong.

No this is a recession we are in, we will recover. Our debt hasn't reached the point where it isn't possible to recover from but we are swiftly headed in that direction. MCcain will cut pork, he has fought his whole career doing so. Remember he was one of only a few that has never sought an earmark. I don't think that he expand a military presence throughout the world. On the flip side, Obama has proposed over 1 trillion dollars in new governmental spending, that is putting your foot on the accelator headed for the defecit cliff. In my opinion, if you don't vote for someone who has fought his whole career to end governmental waste just because your candidate didn't get the nomination seems kinda petty. I hope you don't take offense, it's just my opinion.

 

[Zoomie1980]

If we can't cut anything, then we have to raise taxes.

Otherwise our children are going to have one hell of a tax bill.

My parents said the same things back in the 1970's.... I guess some day the bill will come due, 100, 500, 1000 years from now....some time. It's not my problem. It's now my kid's problem. If it is bad enough of a problem, they will deal with it, or if not, they'll do what my parents did, and I did, pass it on to their kids, my grandkids..... and I'll be dead and long gone and will no longer care....

 

[Zoomie1980]

I think the overlying point was that somehow this budget deficit needs to be balanced. If they're not going to cut spending, then they need to raise taxes. Deficits most certainly DO matter.

I'm in favor of as little spending and as little taxes as possible, but I'm also in favor of a balanced budget however it needs to be accomplished. I'd be ok with taxes being raised for a time, so long as spending levels were not increased. But sooner or later the out of control spending needs to stop.

I like the flat tax a lot, but I'd much rather see spending come down to levels where that tax revenue isn't even necessary. There's no reason we can't cut spending to levels where an income tax or a flat tax are not even required.

What do you cut? Be specific.

 

[Zoomie1980]

This is sheer nonsense. The U.S. Government wastes massive amounts of money. That is where the focus should be. Solve that problem and the government will have more than enough money to do what it needs to do.

How? Be specific.