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)
 
Old 03-29-2013, 10:21 AM
 
Location: NC
1,873 posts, read 2,385,287 times
Reputation: 1825

Advertisements

Best I can tell, FY2012 isn't final, hence FY2011 actuals.

I'm a lifelong fiscal conservative, but I watched some interviews with people demonstrating against big government and any tax increases last night. When they were asked which spending item they would cut for each category (Soc Sec, Defense, Medicare, etc.) they would NOT cut anything except foreign aid (150 international affairs) and congressional salaries (800 gen'l government). Those would hardly begin to reduce deficits.

OTOH, the only consensus item on the liberal side seems to be 'make the rich pay their fair share' and/or 'make corporations pay their fair share.' I won't argue those here, but the charts below show if you did nothing else you'd have to increase federal income taxes on the top 10% by 70% or increase corporate income taxes by 618% (or 7.18 TIMES) - and those taxes would be passed through to consumers.

And defense is often mentioned, understandably with two wars winding down. But no one (in their right mind) would completely gut defense, so defense isn't the whole answer either.

So what's the real answer (vs unfounded partisan sound bites)?
Attached Thumbnails
Federal Revenue & Spending FY2011 - How Would You Close Deficits/Debt EXACTLY?-revenue.png   Federal Revenue & Spending FY2011 - How Would You Close Deficits/Debt EXACTLY?-spending.png  
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-29-2013, 11:01 AM
 
20,553 posts, read 19,206,657 times
Reputation: 8144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midpack View Post
Best I can tell, FY2012 isn't final, hence FY2011 actuals.

I'm a lifelong fiscal conservative, but I watched some interviews with people demonstrating against big government and any tax increases last night. When they were asked which spending item they would cut for each category (Soc Sec, Defense, Medicare, etc.) they would NOT cut anything except foreign aid (150 international affairs) and congressional salaries (800 gen'l government). Those would hardly begin to reduce deficits.

OTOH, the only consensus item on the liberal side seems to be 'make the rich pay their fair share' and/or 'make corporations pay their fair share.' I won't argue those here, but the charts below show if you did nothing else you'd have to increase federal income taxes on the top 10% by 70% or increase corporate income taxes by 618% (or 7.18 TIMES) - and those taxes would be passed through to consumers.

Increasing corporate taxes will do nothing as it will only encourage them to use debt financing. Never use debt weight taxes. Only tax monopoly income which cannot be passed on to consumers.


Quote:
And defense is often mentioned, understandably with two wars winding down. But no one (in their right mind) would completely gut defense, so defense isn't the whole answer either.

So what's the real answer (vs unfounded partisan sound bites)?
Get a new life and become a private debt fiscal conservative instead. Cut regressive taxes on labor and any taxes on industry aside from FIRE sector before bothering to cut spending until unemployment hits 3%, and then begin cutting spending while increasing public deficits with industrial tax relief, all while raising interest rates and reserve ratios to keep inflation in check until bank credit is extinguished. That will free the economy of bank parasite interest overhead.

Then start over with bank credit only for industrial financing, but not tax deductible, and keep FIRE sector at no more than 5% of the total economy by using taxation on ground values.Reclassify buildings as capital and do not tax except for local use taxes on fire and police.



If that is partisan I'd like to know who so I could vote for them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2013, 03:31 PM
 
58,330 posts, read 26,683,019 times
Reputation: 14056
Anybody who has worked for or with the fed gov't can tell you story after story of waste, fraud and abuse.

There is very little oversight on spending.

EVERY program should be reviewed and scrutinized. A determination should be made, Is this program worth borrowing money to keep it going?

Most people are not aware that there are about 42 fed job training programs. What about the number of unoccupied buildings the gov't is renting (paying for utilities0 and are not using, as examples.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2013, 03:34 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,760,838 times
Reputation: 6509
The only real long term solutions to solving national debt is by restructuring Medicare/cade and social security.

People think these two programs are expensive now, just wait till all the baby boomers start to collect.

All the other programs are small in comparison to the curent and future cost of the two above (though they still should be scrutinized for savings).

In before the your being racist or want to kill old people.

The actual liabilities of the federal government—including Social Security, Medicare, and federal employees' future retirement benefits—already exceed $86.8 trillion, or 550% of GDP. For the year ending Dec. 31, 2011, the annual accrued expense of Medicare and Social Security was $7 trillion. Nothing like that figure is used in calculating the deficit. In reality, the reported budget deficit is less than one-fifth of the more accurate figure
http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/a/SB100...?mg=reno64-wsj

This is why I'm planning to never collect social security. It either won't be around or it will be means tested by the time I retire (I'm 28).

Last edited by shooting4life; 03-29-2013 at 03:43 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2013, 03:54 PM
 
11,768 posts, read 10,205,041 times
Reputation: 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
The only real long term solutions to solving national debt is by restructuring Medicare/cade and social security.

People think these two programs are expensive now, just wait till all the baby boomers start to collect.

All the other programs are small in comparison to the curent and future cost of the two above (though they still should be scrutinized for savings).

In before the your being racist or want to kill old people.

The actual liabilities of the federal government—including Social Security, Medicare, and federal employees' future retirement benefits—already exceed $86.8 trillion, or 550% of GDP. For the year ending Dec. 31, 2011, the annual accrued expense of Medicare and Social Security was $7 trillion. Nothing like that figure is used in calculating the deficit. In reality, the reported budget deficit is less than one-fifth of the more accurate figure
Cox and Archer: Why $16 Trillion Only Hints at the True U.S. Debt - WSJ.com

This is why I'm planning to never collect social security. It either won't be around or it will be means tested by the time I retire (I'm 28).
Basically this. Defense spending can come down 30%. In 2005 we were spending 5-600 billion and we are spending about 900 billion now. There is no reason the spending can't drop with the wars winding down. the rest needs to come from medicare and SS. The largest driver of debt is medicare, but no politician is willing to cut the program. Bush expanded the program with the Rx drug plan and didn't pay for it, so that doesn't help either. Exclude medicare and the budget is basically balanced.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2013, 04:05 PM
 
45,209 posts, read 26,690,733 times
Reputation: 23585
Two facets - tax income and spending

Tax income - The dialogue is about raising rates. No one speaks of raising GDP. Tax revenue is constantly 16%-21% of GDP. So why not look to raise GDP? Get rid of nuisance regulation that stifle growth. Do what it takes to get more people working and increase the tax base instead of having to fund everything with half of the working population.

Spending - Obvious - cut it - everywhere. They all have waste. Government owns many empty buildings. Sell them. Quit funneling money to colleges in the name of research. Simplify the processes. Stop the working vacations on taxpayers' dime.

Just a brief answer.
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 09:52 AM.

© 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