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.
That sounds just like the left's and the right's answer to solving our problems except the left would refuse any and all measures regarding lower incomes and the right would refuse any and all tax increases on the higher incomes. In other words it sounds like they took a "balanced approach."
No where was I hearing that America should be taking a balanced approach from?
The difference has to do with the TIMING.
NO ONE on the Left (or even Center-Left like me) on this board was arguing that we cut any government spending while the economy was in such dire shape. While the country was still in the midst of that WE were arguing to INCREASE spending (ie things like the Stimulus). Folks on the Right however were IMMEDIATELY calling for massive cuts in government spending (and we've now seen the effect of THAT dumb policy in Europe).
For those of us on the Left or Center-Left open to cuts in government, they were to come LATER - once the economy had healed enough to be able to sustain those cuts without throwing the country back into recession - because make no mistake about it, despite claims from the Right, cuts in government spending HURT the economy - and NOT just the poor, but the middle class as well. Cuts in government spending COSTS jobs - especially when the private sector is not yet able to obsorb the surplused workers. We are already seeing that the sequestor (which isn't really serious cutting - certainly NOTHING like the cuts Europe sustained during their Austerity experiment) is dragging on the economy.
At THIS stage in the recovery, I'm pretty confident the economy can handle that drag without dropping us back into recession, but make no mistake about it, those government cuts ARE hurting us right now - and they will for some time to come.
Why don't you write Buffet and ask him who would be more efficient at creating wealth, increasing the GDP and increasing jobs with his money? Him, or the government?
I think you already know the answer to that because of what Buffet plans to do with his wealth when he dies. Eighty-five percent of it is going to private foundations and 5/6ths of that going to the Gates Foundation (who will be sending that overseas for the most part). What does he plan to donate to the government?
By the way, I never said rich people who profit from capital gains will just throw their hands up and give up if taxes are raised on their capital gains. I'm simply saying that they have a far better capacity to grow the economy than bureaucrats in government do.
Ten million dollars in taxes or $10 million in reinvestment? Ten million dollars in lavish parties for IRS agents or $10 million in reinvestment? Ten million dollars to research shrimp on treadmills or $10 million in reinvestment? Ten million dollars in presidential suites for IRS agents or $10 million in reinvestment?
It's pretty simple actually. This does not mean I don't think there could be some tweaks to capital gains taxes. I certainly think it's stupid to tax them only when they're realized. That doesn't allow for efficient flow of capital and it tends to "lock-in" those investments which I think stifles risk taking.
So, your attempt to answer me with something I never proposed fails on its face and at all other levels.
You do realize that the gov't doesn't just hoard taxes, don't you?
You do realize that, outside of foreign aid, every dime the gov't receives makes it's way back into the U.S. economy, don't you?
You do realize that a majority of the uber wealthy offshore their wealth, don't you?
You do realize that the gov't doesn't just hoard taxes, don't you?
You do realize that, outside of foreign aid, every dime the gov't receives makes it's way back into the U.S. economy, don't you?
You do realize that a majority of the uber wealthy offshore their wealth, don't you?
...well now you know.
Quote:
In fiscal year 2010, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)—the agency that administers Medicare and Medicaid—estimated that these programs made a total of over $70 billion in improper payments.
USPS cannot fund its current level of service and operations from its revenues; has a retiree health benefit liability of about $94 billion; and did not have sufficient cash or borrowing authority to make retiree health benefit prefunding payments totaling $11.1 billion for the last 2 years, which contributed to a net loss of almost $16 billion for fiscal year 2012. Although USPS has reduced its expenses, it has not been able to cut costs fast enough to offset the large decline in mail volume and revenue. Further, although USPS has generated new revenue, primarily from package delivery services, its total revenue continues to decline. USPS reached its $15 billion borrowing limit in fiscal year 2012, thus risking a lack of liquidity. USPS urgently needs to restructure to reflect changes in its customers’ use of the mail, to align its costs with revenues, generate sufficient funding for capital investment, and manage its debt (see table 4).
In addition to challenges in funding high speed rail projects, the federal government finances nearly all of Amtrak’s capital costs. Further, Amtrak’s revenues typically do not meet its operating expenses and the federal government subsidizes a portion of these costs. For example, in fiscal year 2011 Amtrak reported that ticket revenue covered about 79 percent of its operating expenses. In fiscal year 2011 the federal government provided about $1.5 billion to Amtrak—about $922 million for capital and debt service and an additional $562 million for operating grants. Amtrak’s reliance on federal financial support is likely to continue given its estimated capital needs of about $52 billion for Northeast Corridor improvements through 2030 and an additional $23 billion for locomotive and passenger car replacement by 2040.
The federal government continues to retain more real property than it needs. In June 2010, the President directed federal civilian agencies were to have achieved $3 billion in cost savings by 2012 through a number of methods, one of which was better management of excess properties. Although the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and federal agencies believe they will reach their savings targets, the actual savings associated with selling excess and better managing underutilized property are not transparent and may be overstated. The lack of reliable data is a significant challenge to identifying and reducing the government’s unneeded and underutilized property. FRPC developed the Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP) database to collect key inventory information on the government’s real property holdings. However, FRPC has not followed sound data collection practices in designing and maintaining the FRPP, which raises concerns that the database is not a useful tool for describing the nature, use, and extent of excess and underutilized federal real property.
In recent reviews of other DOD components, GAO also found internal control weaknesses in DOD’s procedures for maintaining accountability for billions of dollars in funds and other resources. For example, the Army and DFAS could not readily identify the full population of payroll accounts associated with the Army’s $46 billion active duty military payroll because of deficiencies in existing procedures and nonintegrated personnel and payroll systems. GAO recommended that the Army identify documents needed to support military payroll transactions affecting the pay of millions of active duty Army military personnel and that it develop and implement procedures for maintaining those documents.
Further, in September 2012, GAO reported that DHS’s acquisition policy reflects many key management practices that could help mitigate risks and increase chances for successful outcomes. However, most of DHS’s major acquisition programs continue to cost more than expected, take longer to deploy than planned, or deliver less capability than promised. GAO identified 42 programs that experienced cost growth, schedule slips, or both, with 16 of the programs’ costs increasing from a total of $19.7 billion in 2008 to $52.2 billion in 2011—an aggregate increase of 166 percent. GAO found that these outcomes are largely the result of DHS’s lack of adherence to key knowledge-based program management practices, even though many are reflected in the department’s own acquisition policy.
Finally, while DHS has initiated efforts to validate required acquisition documents in a timely manner at major milestones, GAO reported in September 2012 that DHS leadership has authorized and continued to invest in major acquisition programs even though the vast majority of those programs lack foundational documents demonstrating the knowledge needed to help manage risks and measure performance.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) insures the pension benefits of 43 million American workers and retirees participating in nearly 26,000 private sector defined benefit plans through its single-employer and multiemployer insurance programs. PBGC’s financial portfolio is one of the largest of any federal government corporation, with more than $80 billion in assets. Yet, because of long-term challenges related to PBGC’s governance and funding structure, PBGC’s financial future is uncertain. At the end of fiscal year 2012, PBGC’s net accumulated financial deficit was $34 billion—an increase of over $23 billion from the end of fiscal year 2008, and significantly worse than in 2000, when PBGC reported a $10 billion surplus (see figure 6). PBGC estimates that its financial risk for potential termination of underfunded plans sponsored by financially weak firms is about $295 billion, an amount that has continued to worsen since the economic downturn in 2008.
Since the enactment of the Travel and Transportation Reform Act (TTRA) of 1998 (P.L. 105-
264), which required federal employees to use travel charge cards to pay for the expenses of
official government travel, the dollar volume of travel card transactions has increased
significantly, growing from $4.39 billion in FY1999 to $8.93 billion in FY2009. While the
purpose of mandating the use of travel cards was to reduce costs and improve managerial
oversight of employee travel expenditures, audits of agency travel card programs conducted since
the enactment of the TTRA have found varying degrees of waste, fraud, and abuse at a number of
agencies. These findings indicated systemic weaknesses in agency travel card management
policies and practices—collectively referred to as internal controls—that cost the government
millions of dollars annually.
Among some of the more egregious examples of card misuse identified by auditors are a Federal
Aviation Administration employee who charged $3,700 for laser eye surgery to his travel card, a
Department of Defense employee who requested and received reimbursements for 13 airline
tickets totaling almost $10,000 that he did not purchase, and a Department of State employee who
took an unauthorized trip to Hawaii on a first-class ticket. Auditors also determined that certain
agencies have not collected reimbursement for millions of dollars worth of unused airline tickets,
have repeatedly failed to pay their travel card invoices in a timely manner, and have permitted or
failed to prevent abuse of premium-class travel privileges.
Federal agencies reported an estimated $115.3 billion in improper payments in fiscal year 2011, a decrease of $5.3 billion from the prior year reported estimate of $120.6 billion.
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.
