I get that once the war ramped down, the deficit is under a trillion, but it is still over a half trillion. That is annually.
This isnt a republican or democrat issue, so save the g.d. rhetoric. The question is whether anyone on either side has set out a plan to pay down their debt or even a timeline to end their deficit.
I take it the answer is no then.
__________________
"OOOOOOHHHHHHH those Russians" - Boney M
Last edited by killer_carlson; 10-08-2013 at 10:00 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to killer_carlson For This Useful Post:
AltaGuy has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: At le pub...
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by killer_carlson
I get that once the war ramped down, the deficit is under a trillion, but it is still over a half trillion. That is annually.
This isnt a republican or democrat issue, so save the g.d. rhetoric. The question is whether anyone on either side has set out a plan to pay down their debt or even a timeline to end their deficit.
Here's a 3 step plan to eliminate the deficit entirely.
1) End the war in Afghanistan - Saving 100 billion a year
2) Add a 0.01 tax on each wall street transaction.
3) Up the taxes on the over 250K tax bracket up to 42% (2.5 % increase)
Bam deficit gone.
Additional savings could be found by allowing every aspect of the health care sector be able to negotiate with suppliers for costs. That alone would probably save most of the deficit by itself.
If you end the war in Afghanistan, you could reduce the amount of people in the military entirely saving a huge portion of finances.
Another thing that you could do is hire more IRS workers. They find illegal practices at a staggering amount in the various businesses around the country. For every hour they work, they make something like $9000 for the government. By having more "tax police" you will reduce the amount of evaders and increase the amount in the coffers.
They could also spend another 750 billion dollars over the next decade on infrastructure projects, which will return the money to themselves in increased tax revenue over time.
__________________ Fireside Chat - The #1 Flames Fan Podcast - FiresideChat.ca
Last edited by Caged Great; 10-08-2013 at 10:31 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Caged Great For This Useful Post:
Pretty much this. Restore taxation to Clinton-era levels and end the Bush wars and the US would be back in the black. It's hard to believe now, but the Congressional Budget Office published a report in January 2001 (the same month that Bush was sworn into office) that predicted that the US debt could be completely paid off by 2009 if Clinton's economic policies continued. 2009!!!!!!
Since the retiring of debt held by the public is limited by how much can be redeemed, CBO displays the full effect of surpluses on the government’s financial position with a new measure—net indebtedness. Net indebtedness is a so-called stock measure that combines outstanding debt held by the public and the balance of uncommitted funds, thus showing the cumulative total of all annual deficits and surpluses. (In 2008, for example, 1,039 billion of debt held by the public that is not available for redemption minus the $1,003 billion of uncommitted funds gives a net indebtedness of $36 billion; see Table 1-4.) Under CBO’s baseline projections, net indebtedness turns negative in 2009, meaning that the balance of uncommitted funds exceeds the remaining debt owed to the public.
Emphasis added.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
I get that once the war ramped down, the deficit is under a trillion, but it is still over a half trillion. That is annually.
This isnt a republican or democrat issue, so save the g.d. rhetoric. The question is whether anyone on either side has set out a plan to pay down their debt or even a timeline to end their deficit.
I take it the answer is no then.
By letting the Bush tax cuts expire, which were an abject failure, the federal government now has more revenue. The Affordable Care Act should also decrease the amount of money the federal government pays for healthcare, and the burden bankruptcies place on the financial system. Financial regulation will help mitigate boom and bust cycles, student loan reform will help lighten the burden on new high income earners to spend more money in the economy on the horses that drive it, such as home ownership. Increasing funding to sciences and government lead research and development will continue to have beneficial effects on the consumer applications of new technologies. Tightening regulation on industry will help prevent catastrophic, economy disrupting events such as the most recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Increased funding for infrastructure for renewable energy sources will decrease reliance on foreign imports and domestic production in sensitive ecological areas, stabilizing the cost of energy and decreasing the expenditures necessary to keep foreign energy sources secure.
Guess who is trying to get those things done.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flash Walken For This Useful Post:
By letting the Bush tax cuts expire, which were an abject failure, the federal government now has more revenue. The Affordable Care Act should also decrease the amount of money the federal government pays for healthcare, and the burden bankruptcies place on the financial system. Financial regulation will help mitigate boom and bust cycles, student loan reform will help lighten the burden on new high income earners to spend more money in the economy on the horses that drive it, such as home ownership. Increasing funding to sciences and government lead research and development will continue to have beneficial effects on the consumer applications of new technologies. Tightening regulation on industry will help prevent catastrophic, economy disrupting events such as the most recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Increased funding for infrastructure for renewable energy sources will decrease reliance on foreign imports and domestic production in sensitive ecological areas, stabilizing the cost of energy and decreasing the expenditures necessary to keep foreign energy sources secure.
Guess who is trying to get those things done.
1. Increased regulation wouldn't have prevented the BP oil spill. Unless you were talking about legislation to pre-drill a relief well (some countries require this).
2. Energy security is a myth. Oil trades on the free market this isn't a risk style game where you capture resources. You can just buy oil. In theory the US gets oil from Cuba despite an embargo since Sherrit can sell their portion to anyone and if that anyone resells to someone in the US it's not a big deal. The US spent $500billion on the Iraq war. They could've bought 5/7ths of Norways reserves for the same price.
Anyway...I'm sure you just left out the above details.
The Following User Says Thank You to Rutuu For This Useful Post:
Note for anyone who -- like me -- had a half-second of optimism that was quickly dashed after hovering my mouse over the URL: Tea Party leaders are still flipping morons who aren't ready to deal; this is only a link to The Onion.
CNN's been doing a tally of house members who would support a clean resolution, and right now it's at 219 (217 is needed to pass). Normally I wouldn't attach much weight to it, but they do have a list of 19 Republicans who have stated that they would support a CR. I don't think it's much of a surprise that Boehner's claim that the votes aren't there to support a clean resolution was a lie.
This just feels like another election all over again. Press conferences held to basically slam the crap out of the other party to make themselves look good.
It's mostly the GOP imo, but a lot of these people in charge of the country are acting like a bunch of children. It's the other party's fault..............we get it. Now get out there and do your job.
The Following User Says Thank You to KootenayFlamesFan For This Useful Post:
This just feels like another election all over again. Press conferences held to basically slam the crap out of the other party to make themselves look good.
It's mostly the GOP imo, but a lot of these people in charge of the country are acting like a bunch of children. It's the other party's fault..............we get it. Now get out there and do your job.
Come on, it isn't 'the other parties fault', it's the Tea Party controlling the Republicans who are trying to rewrite a law that has nothing to do with the funding. They remind me of a spoiled kid holding his breath to get his own way, like this idiot.
Obama clearly should be sharing some blame for not throwing the entire electoral and law making processes under the bus, wouldn't you agree?
This entire thing is beyond idiotic, but the longer it goes on, the more it will move the Tea Party into obscurity since it will just increase the cost to the Republican party as a whole during the midterm elections. If it goes on long enough, it might actually convince the leadership to shun the crazy and actually be willing to move to the center to have a chance at winning elections.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
I really wish the Tea Party would just decide to go build Glenn Beck's city so we can not only be done with them but so we can laugh at them for building and living in a centrally planned and controlled city which should be the antithesis of their beliefs.
How any of this is the fault of the Democrats is beyond me. The Republicans are holding the country hostage and want to repeal a law voted in by government and upheld by the Supreme Court
How any of this is the fault of the Democrats is beyond me. The Republicans are holding the country hostage and want to repeal a law voted in by government and upheld by the Supreme Court
And had the President who pushed it re-elected by the population.
