Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
2,500,000 members. Thank you!
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 05-09-2012, 04:55 PM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,587,018 times
Reputation: 20026

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyBats View Post
That's what Clinton did and imo it worked pretty damn well. My right wing buddies say they want spending cuts and no tax increases, and my left wing buddies want tax increases and no spending cuts. Doesn't it make sense that if there is a large deficit to both increase taxes minimally (back to Clinton era rates) and cut spending aggressively?
personally i want to see REAL spending cuts at the federal level, not the cut in the rate of increase. thats where we need to start. then we need to reform and simplify the tax code, by lowering taxes and eliminating many deductions. if at that point we still need to increase revenues, only then should we consider a tax increase, though i doubt that an increase in taxes would then be necessary.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-09-2012, 05:20 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,855,467 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC View Post
I can't speak for everyone else but I don't like the loosey-goosey way the government spends taxpayer money. I think I can spend my money more responsibly than they can. You know, what are they raising my taxes for, some subsidy for a company like Solyndra? Money for Brazil to do the drilling we should be doing here? Fast and Furious? Subsidies for rich people green cars (Fisker)? Turtle tunnels? A stimulus that didn't stimulate? Cash for Clunkers that benefited Foreign auto makers? Magicians/clowns/comedians/whatever for GSA conferences? Bridges to nowhere? Airports that no one uses? A million dollars for poetry readings at zoos? $442,340 to study male prostitutes in Vietnam? Free bicycle helmets for rich neighborhoods in NYC? A $5.2 million federal grant to build
the Neon Boneyard Park (old Las Vegas signs) and Museum in Las Vegas? A quarter million dollars to a Stanford University professor‘s study of how Americans use the Internet to find love? A $137,500 federal grant to some Dartmouth professor to create a recession-inspired video game called ―Layoff,‖ a puzzlestyle game in which players fire as many people as they can as quickly as possible? $5 million in federal funds to send government employees to Harvard? $571 million in transportation enhancement grants used to plant flowers instead of repairing highways?

I could go on.

http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/...b-a15eb44e7f18
So, you think you can spend your tax money better than the government, huh?

Here’s how to think about this argument: it implies that we should shut down the air traffic control system. After all, that system is paid for with taxes — and surely it would be better to let the public keep its money rather than hand it over to government bureaucrats. If that would mean lots of midair collisions, hey, stuff happens.

The same thing is true for meat inspectors — fire the meat inspectors and take your chances at the supermarket — but you get to keep your tax money. The same analogy holds for FBI agents; TSA agents; and virtually everything the federal government does.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2012, 05:36 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,855,467 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
personally i want to see REAL spending cuts at the federal level, not the cut in the rate of increase. thats where we need to start. then we need to reform and simplify the tax code, by lowering taxes and eliminating many deductions. if at that point we still need to increase revenues, only then should we consider a tax increase, though i doubt that an increase in taxes would then be necessary.
What's interesting about your post is that you start off talking about cutting spending and lowering rates while cutting deductions. Perhaps you don't realize that that policy lowers rates for the wealthy and cuts out things like the mortgage deduction, which is primarily used by the middle-class. Thus, you are shifting the tax burden down.

On spending, what would you cut? From a spending standpoint, think of the federal government as a huge insurance company with an army. If you think you can make significant savings cutting out someones earmark for a museum without touching the big items, you are wasting your time. One can probably cut $100 billion a year out of the military and nobody would notice.

Any serious plan requires tax increases. It's just math.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2012, 05:42 PM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,435,740 times
Reputation: 8094
We don't have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem. Until the spending problem is kept under control, I am not going to agree to any tax increase.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2012, 06:10 PM
 
3,045 posts, read 3,178,408 times
Reputation: 1307
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyBats View Post
That's what Clinton did and imo it worked pretty damn well. My right wing buddies say they want spending cuts and no tax increases, and my left wing buddies want tax increases and no spending cuts. Doesn't it make sense that if there is a large deficit to both increase taxes minimally (back to Clinton era rates) and cut spending aggressively?
Most people make up their opinions based on emotion and not rational thought. Their emotions tell them that taxes are bad and that government is too big. Few people know much about comparative tax rates and few people realize the truth of government spending and that there's not much to cut.

For instance....

Quote:
We don't have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem. Until the spending problem is kept under control, I am not going to agree to any tax increase.
Yeah? Prove it. Grow a set and outline what you would cut. Don't forget to include a discussion of the Laffer curve implications and how you need to cut more than a dollar to save one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2012, 06:16 PM
 
48,505 posts, read 96,430,033 times
Reputation: 18295
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyBats View Post
That's what Clinton did and imo it worked pretty damn well. My right wing buddies say they want spending cuts and no tax increases, and my left wing buddies want tax increases and no spending cuts. Doesn't it make sense that if there is a large deficit to both increase taxes minimally (back to Clinton era rates) and cut spending aggressively?
It really depends on who the tax increase is on as determined by if people liked Clinton tax increases. Its the same now;have you seen any democrats wanting tax increase for their numbners ;no. One only has to look at the committee in senate when debating the support of the new healthcare bill. All democratic groups refuced any support financially for the healthcare bill. I favor tax reform where the tax based is broaden;elimiates of all loopholes from main street to wall street ;not just the clinton and usual approach of tax the rich more and put more pople not apying any fedral tax to support the government and services they want.The wealth sharing downhill slide since the 60's is what has resulted in the situation we are now in both economically and national debt wise.Too few supportig too mnay dependents in disfusntional economy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2012, 06:30 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,855,467 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
We don't have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem. Until the spending problem is kept under control, I am not going to agree to any tax increase.
Good bumper sticker that's just false. After Bush lowered taxes the nation went from surpluses to deficits every year since. Doesn't that tell you something?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2012, 06:34 PM
 
4,057 posts, read 4,093,229 times
Reputation: 2026
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyBats View Post
That's what Clinton did and imo it worked pretty damn well. My right wing buddies say they want spending cuts and no tax increases, and my left wing buddies want tax increases and no spending cuts. Doesn't it make sense that if there is a large deficit to both increase taxes minimally (back to Clinton era rates) and cut spending aggressively?
Clinton raise tax on the dot com revolution which created millions of NEW jobs.

I know you want to say raising tax creates new job and sorry to tell you, it doesn't.

Government have this linear model on taxation.

If they the total income is $100, if they have 10% tax, government will get $10. If they raise it to 25%, government will get $25. So to get a $75 income for the government, they just need to raise the tax rate to 75%. However, real world just don't work like that.

When you raise tax so high, people just refuse to work and just stop paying all together. The IRS is not exactly know for their efficiency and smart.

The only way to solve this problem is push the Federal government in the state shoe, no more money printing. Get rid of the federal reserves and government will have to face reality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2012, 08:58 PM
 
29,893 posts, read 18,442,429 times
Reputation: 20635
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyBats View Post
That's what Clinton did and imo it worked pretty damn well. My right wing buddies say they want spending cuts and no tax increases, and my left wing buddies want tax increases and no spending cuts. Doesn't it make sense that if there is a large deficit to both increase taxes minimally (back to Clinton era rates) and cut spending aggressively?

I am all for it-

1. 15% VAT taX
2. Balanced budget amendment
3. cut corporate taxes to 15%
4. Renegotiate NAFTA and China most favored nation trade status
5. open US domestic oil, coal, and natural gas exploration
6. Muzzle the EPA
7. National right to work act
8. Enforce illegal immigration
9. Corporate consumption tax


There you go- problem solved
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2012, 09:39 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,855,467 times
Reputation: 5661
All the liberals I know want tax increases, especially on the wealthy, plus spending cuts, especially defense. There is nothing wrong with the progressive tax system idea, it just isn't very progressive anymore. There is no need to add a regressive VAT.
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, 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