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.
I seem to recall a recent 500 billion cut in Medicare. I'd like to see an equal ratio of cuts in military spending. But the repubs only want to cut spending to the poor and lower middleclass, while maintaining massive tax breaks for the rich.
By the way, great way to sidestep the question and redirect the focus. You dance well.
The left just despises the military eh? Its always the first thing they cut, and they forget its the one thing the federal government is supposed to actually fund.
Yet another example of stupid and ignorant reporting by CNN. Kind of happens a lot lately.
In 2007, six years after the tax cuts were in place, the budget deficit stood at 1.2 percent of GDP. By 2009, it had increased to 9.9 percent of the economy.
The Bush tax cuts didn't change between 2007 and 2009.
True, but fresh money has had to be borrowed every year to maintain them. There was never money enough coming in in the first place to give anyone a "tax cut".
The effect of the cuts was to defer payment of the borrowed money to another generation.
It is projected that if the current Bush tax cuts are allowed to continue it will add 2 trillion to the deficit over the next 3 years. Are we good with that?
I respect all viewpoints in this debate as I too agree that spending needs to be brought under control. But government revenue needs to be increased and applied to the deficit. It truly is a double edged sword.
This whole thread is arguing over things that are not real. Mohawkx do you honestly believe these number. It sounds a lot like the 8% unemployment if we pass this Stimulus Package numbers. They are not real, if you take 2 trillion dollars out of people's pockets over the next three years. I don't see how this won't slow the economy and cause more unemployment reducing the amount of taxes that are collected.
This whole thread is arguing over things that are not real. Mohawkx do you honestly believe these number. It sounds a lot like the 8% unemployment if we pass this Stimulus Package numbers. They are not real, if you take 2 trillion dollars out of people's pockets over the next three years. I don't see how this won't slow the economy and cause more unemployment reducing the amount of taxes that are collected.
0bama took over $3 trillion dollars in deficit spending to try and make everything all better, and God and Geithner only know how much they spent over at the federal reserve, and the economy and employment is still in the crapper. The best thing they can say about the $3+ trillion dollars is that we are in a Bush recession, does not sound like a very successful 0bama admin to me.
Answer to the question: slash government spending and size. Cut it back to 1/1,000,000 of its present size and spending, and watch the economy explode and prosperity return to America. No deficits and massive new tax cuts will then be the result.
I was watching Fareed Zakaria on CNN this morning and he brought up a good point about Republican political strategy. He pointed out with charts and statistics the fact that the largest contributor to the deficit is by far, the Bush tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts contributed much more to the current deficit than HCR, stimulus or tarp. Republicans are currently in total lock step against letting the Bush tax cuts expire but how can that be? They are against any funding that will raise the deficit and have shown they will use every political method to block any government funding of any program that increases the deficit. IE: extending unemployment or providing any stimulus for states and cities to keep firefighters, police and teachers from losing their jobs. Yet as Fareed pointed out today, the deficit would plummet by 35% in 5 years if we did absolutely nothing except let the Bush tax cuts expire. I would like my esteemed colleagues on the right to explain this obvious dichotomy . If the repubs are so worried about the deficit then why fight the expiration of the Bush tax cuts???????
Respectfully speaking, I thought that's what governemnt is supposed to do. Collect taxes and spend the revenue as it sees fit, for the betterment of the nation. Some for defense, some for infrastructure and some for the health and well being of it's citizens. There appears to be a certain segment of society that wants the infrastructure to be dammed and eliminate all funding pertaining to the health and welfare of the citizens. This I can't abide.
Most of that is not the responsibility of government, but government trying to fill them is why we have runaway spending and a massive deficit. It's really not that difficult a concept, if you don't have the money you cut spending - period. You cut spending on projects that don't make the country safer or stronger. You spend money to keep the interstates open, without those commerce will stop, you spend money on defense, you cut spending - they could start with the egregious waste and move on to eliminating useless programs and as needed start cutting services.
It is not governments place to be all things to all people or provide cradle to grave support.
It is projected that if the current Bush tax cuts are allowed to continue it will add 2 trillion to the deficit over the next 3 years. Are we good with that?
And I'm sure the MASSIVE out of control spending spree Obama and the democrats have gone on since he took office have nothing to do with that, right? SPENDING has tripled under Obama. If he didn't increase it over what Bush did (which was already to much) that would account for more than 2 trillion over 3 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx
I respect all viewpoints in this debate as I too agree that spending needs to be brought under control. But government revenue needs to be increased and applied to the deficit. It truly is a double edged sword.
Start with cutting the deficit by $1.2 trillion and maybe people would be willing to think about increasing taxes. It's insane to even think about raising taxes to fund irresponsible, unfunded, spending.
WHAT? Look it up, we had the highest revenues in history coming in
They are at the lowest percent of GDP since the 1940's
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.
