Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, thats not what it says.. it says REVENUE increases.. Thats not the same
How is that not the same?
If you're paying more money to the government, then it is a tax increase. Not a very complicated concept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
A balanced budget amendment is stupid.
Just tell your lawmakers that if they don't balance the budget, you won't be re-electing them.
If there is a war, or a major natural disaster, I want the government to be able to have an unbalanced budget. And essentially, the budget is balanced every year, its simply balanced by taking on more debt.
A better amendment would be term limits of not more than two terms in either house of congress, unless a significant majority in the state vote for them again. Lets say 70% of the population.
I have mixed feelings about a balanced budget amendment and haven't made up my mind on the issue. It does seem that Congress needs to forced into restraining spending, however, such an amendment would probably be watered down enough to make it pointless. There needs to be leeway for actual emergencies.
I don't agree with term limits. Instead, the American people need to start paying attention to the issues and holding their representatives responsible. Fortunately that seems to be happening, but there's still a ways to go.
A international study that the Speakers website upholds as a reasonable approach to budget sanity says that (see above), most successful budget consolidation measures around the world have come from 85% spending cuts, and 15% tax increases.
When Eric Cantor walked out of budget talks the other day, the reported ratio on the table by Democrats was 83/17 spending cuts to tax increase ratio.
Who is being unreasonable? Republicans know that some taxes will have to be raised, or at least loop holes closed.
If that was good, why not do even better which is what Ron Paul is proposing and do not only huge spending cuts but ELIMINATION of ENTIRE DEPARTMENTS ? Then there would be no need for tax increases. In fact he says there'd be no need for that. In fact we could cut taxes if not eliminate Federal Income tax altogether. Sure, close the loopholes on the Fortune 50 companies and eliminate the taxpayer subsidies to BIG AGRA and BIG PHARMA and BIG MEDICA.
If that was good, why not do even better which is what Ron Paul is proposing and do not only huge spending cuts but ELIMINATION of ENTIRE DEPARTMENTS ? Then there would be no need for tax increases. In fact he says there'd be no need for that. In fact we could cut taxes if not eliminate Federal Income tax altogether. Sure, close the loopholes on the Fortune 50 companies and eliminate the taxpayer subsidies to BIG AGRA and BIG PHARMA and BIG MEDICA.
There should be tax increases.
If you read the link that I posted in the OP, and look at the links contained within it, you'll see that all spending cuts with no tax increases has proven a bad model for budget sanity. It pulls to much money out of the economy to quickly, which makes things worse.
It also unfairly forces more of the burden on the poorest Americans when they are having the hardest time making ends meet already.
Just tell your lawmakers that if they don't balance the budget, you won't be re-electing them.
And therein lies the conundrum. Americans may want a balanced budget, but they also don't want any of their money touched (whether that be through tax increases on income or benefit decreases).
All Americans need to be willing to sacrifice to make this happen.
pgh, you dont gotta spin it because your boy is a republican.
it is what it is. and other republicans have commented in this thread without spinning.
I dont care if othe Republicans have commented on the thread and got it flat WRONG.. Really I dont.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
LOL, the mental gymnastics! What's the govt. going to do for "revenue enhancement", if not raise taxes? Selll off the National Archives or something?
One track mind of liberals will never cease to amaze me..
GROW THE GDP.
When Bush CUT TAXES, revenues WENT UP.. So simply saying we need more revenues, does NOT mean you raise taxes..
Why dont we go to the CBO to verify I'm correct. After Bush cut taxes,
Federal Tax Revenues from 2003 to 2006 Had revenues grown at the same rate as the overall economy between 2003 and 2006, federal receipts would have increased by only $373 billion. The other $252 billion of the actual increase in revenues represents growth in excess of GDP growth.
Republicans have said that revenue increases are tax increases, in any way shape or form.
Wrong. When you cut taxes which results in economic growth, the federal government revenues increase while the tax liability on the public decreases. This is true because you move the money faster, and with money moving faster, you tax less, but raise more funds. And no, I'm not proclaiming this means an outright cut is due, but tax cuts which encourage a growth in the economy is far past due.
You raise taxes in good years to slow down growth, you lower them in bad to increase growth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovemycomputer90
How is that not the same?
If you're paying more money to the government, then it is a tax increase. Not a very complicated concept.
What seems to be a complicated concempt to many is that tax revenues to the federal government is due to a tax on profit. If you increase the publics profit, then you get more taxes.
For example, if you make $100, and I the tax man and take $30, I gain more by cutting taxes if this results in you making more money. Example, lower taxes to 25%, and your profit goes up to $150, I now get $37.50.
is that a tax increase? NO.. Did my revenues go up? YES.. Thats how revenues went up to the treasury after Bush cut taxes in 2003.. See above for verification from the CBO.
If we can't afford to be funding programs, then we can't afford spending built into the tax code. Those tax breaks, expenditures, subsidies, loopholes, shelters, etc should also be cut as well.
If we can't afford to be funding programs, then we can't afford spending built into the tax code. Those tax breaks, expenditures, subsidies, loopholes, shelters, etc should also be cut as well.
Boehner is an idiot..he is an old school dinosaur politician that will be voted out soon enough.
Calling someone you don't even know an idiot makes you, what?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
