U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-11-2011, 04:16 PM
 
Location: Del Rio, TN
36,458 posts, read 22,648,922 times
Reputation: 22832

Advertisements

Various news reports have discussed proposals involving $3 trillion in cuts over the next 10 years, with $1 trillion in increased taxes.

What DC typically refers to as a cut, is a reduction in an increase in spending. Propose spending an extra $100 billion, actually spend $60 billion and claim they cut spending $40 billion, while actually increasing by 60. Have any news reports been detailed enough to know what is being proposed? Are we talking actual cuts (based on our current, unsustainable rate of spending), or mearly bogus reductions in spending increases? DC speak (by both parties) is entirely different than what the rest of the world does.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-11-2011, 04:23 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,068 posts, read 79,402,105 times
Reputation: 27671
Yeah..but the taxes are NOW and the cuts are LATER.

That will not solve our problems.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2011, 05:39 PM
 
3,561 posts, read 3,559,509 times
Reputation: 1676
That's how Washington always is. When they talk about cut, it mean cutting future increase in spending. By spending less in the future, it means cutting.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2011, 05:40 PM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,874 posts, read 22,995,334 times
Reputation: 8659
We should cut at least 4 trillion, and have 1 trillion of that come from revenue increases.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2011, 06:06 PM
 
29,409 posts, read 20,709,548 times
Reputation: 5445
All they're trying to do is anything to kick the can past the '12 election. They aren't cutting anything. What is 300 billion a year gonna do anyway? NOTHING. That would just get rid of this year and next years proposed spending. What about the other 8 years? Are they gonna spend what they take in? Fact is in ten years I'm sure mandatory spending will eat all that up anyway. We don't revamp that then it's all a waste of time.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2011, 06:09 PM
 
41,817 posts, read 46,998,805 times
Reputation: 17779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake View Post
What DC typically refers to as a cut, is a reduction in an increase in spending. Propose spending an extra $100 billion, actually spend $60 billion and claim they cut spending $40 billion, while actually increasing by 60.
I noticed that kind of math myself, the Democrats were using it extensively during the budget battle. They would base everything on Obama's proposed budget that never passed. Forget what agency it was but I think it might have been the EPA that would have seen very slight increase in funding over the previous year with GOP proposal. Since Obama's budget called for very large increase the Democrats were claiming it was a massive cut.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2011, 06:12 PM
 
812 posts, read 777,357 times
Reputation: 491
Inflation due to mandatory interest payments on debt notes we call dollars. Basically the government is paying more and getting less. And we bear the brunt of the debt based economic system, where bankers are able to controll trillions of imaginary money to effect Wall St. and Main St. for any of their whims. Something tells me we are going to see a lot more people learning about the Fed these couple of years.
And people were wondering about the purpose of the Bush tax cuts. It was known in advance that even the rich were going to have a hard time, so they gave them a little safety net before the true plunge occurs and the dollar is worth nothing.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2011, 07:37 PM
 
10,876 posts, read 13,019,329 times
Reputation: 4896
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Yeah..but the taxes are NOW and the cuts are LATER.

That will not solve our problems.
False, the tax cuts for the rich won't be restored to their previous rates until 2013, the spending cuts would start now.
Spending cuts along with restoring the tax rates will solve the problem. Clinton proved this with his soaring economy.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2011, 07:50 PM
 
Location: Fredericktown,Ohio
7,168 posts, read 5,006,088 times
Reputation: 2920
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllenDullesMJ12 View Post
Inflation due to mandatory interest payments on debt notes we call dollars. Basically the government is paying more and getting less. And we bear the brunt of the debt based economic system, where bankers are able to controll trillions of imaginary money to effect Wall St. and Main St. for any of their whims. Something tells me we are going to see a lot more people learning about the Fed these couple of years.
And people were wondering about the purpose of the Bush tax cuts. It was known in advance that even the rich were going to have a hard time, so they gave them a little safety net before the true plunge occurs and the dollar is worth nothing.
Tried to rep you,good post.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2011, 08:17 PM
 
41,817 posts, read 46,998,805 times
Reputation: 17779
Quote:
Originally Posted by TempesT68 View Post
Clinton proved this with his soaring economy.
Clinton was lucky to be in power during one of those rare occurrences, in his case the dotcom boom. Even Obama couldn't have screwed that up.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:05 PM.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top