Bill Maher Croseed the line again

[BigRob]

Yeah, let's Hear It!!, for....

Socialized Profits!!

I guess you would prefer she not take them, all of her competitors take them, and then she goes out of business and fires all the farm hands?

 

[ProudLefty]

Everyone wants lower taxes.



If a state is paying ANY federal income tax, (frankly any tax at all to the federal government), why wouldn't they get some of that money back?

OK. Lets drop the Income tax for everyone in those states. Lets use border states, so when they get invaded it won't affect the rest of us.

 

[BigRob]

OK. Lets drop the Income tax for everyone in those states. Lets use border states, so when they get invaded it won't affect the rest of us.

I guess this means you want to drop all federal law along with federal income taxes?

 

[Dr.Who]

You mean, you really want even lower taxes???

Okay, I give up! I think maybe there should be an experiment in the US.

Let's have about 3 States that pays much lower federal taxes, but gets NOTHING in Federal funding. . .and let's see how "satisfactory" it is to everyone living there!

By the way, that would mean EVERYTHING would be on private funding. . including EVERY road, every bridge, every school. . .and. . .if there is a catastrophy like a hurricane or a earthquake. . . no Fema!

On average the fed takes more than it gives, so on average any state that did that would be ahead. And if it were one of the states that gets back even less compared to other states it would do even better. N.J for example only gets back 62 cents for every dollar sent to Wash. so it would do very well.

But I will go father and say that even if it is one of the states that gets back more than it gives it would start working better and then it would thrive more than now. N.D, for example gets back $2.03 for every dollar it sends to Wash (perhaps in defense spending). and it would learn to do just fine without that and would even thrive without the bureaucratic red tape that Wash. imposes on them.

 

[ProudLefty]

I guess this means you want to drop all federal law along with federal income taxes?

I don't, but it appears there is a very large group of people who believe the Federal government is the problem, and the only solution is to do away with it. Except for the checks that they themselves get, of course. The Bachman family comes most immediately to mind.

Perhaps if these people actually went without a Federal government for a few weeks they'd be singing a different tune on their organ grinder??

 

[BigRob]

I don't, but it appears there is a very large group of people who believe the Federal government is the problem, and the only solution is to do away with it. Except for the checks that they themselves get, of course. The Bachman family comes most immediately to mind.

Perhaps if these people actually went without a Federal government for a few weeks they'd be singing a different tune on their organ grinder??

I don't think anyone wants the federal government to simply go away...the federal government serves many legitimate functions...for most people the existence of the federal government is not a problem, the size of the federal government is.

 

[ProudLefty]

I don't think anyone wants the federal government to simply go away...the federal government serves many legitimate functions...for most people the existence of the federal government is not a problem, the size of the federal government is.

The size of the Federal government?!?! Lets see if we can find a graph:

 

[BigRob]

The size of the Federal government?!?! Lets see if we can find a graph:

In terms of money spent...not workforce....but then again you already knew that.

 

[ProudLefty]

In terms of money spent...not workforce....but then again you already knew that.

Really? I am not sure what that even means? We are paying Federal employees too well?


Or do you mean the dollar outlays?

If so, no one is really arguing about cutting spending. The real bone of contention is the idea that the only solution is to cut essential benefits to Americans so that the wealthy can keep their loopholes and low tax rates and Halliburton can keep on being paid $100 to launder a pound of clothes for our soldiers.

 

[BigRob]

Really? I am not sure what that even means? We are paying Federal employees too well?

If we are running trillion dollar deficits due to worker salary, then yes...but that is not the case obviously.

Or do you mean the dollar outlays?

If so, no one is really arguing about cutting spending. The real bone of contention is the idea that the only solution is to cut essential benefits to Americans so that the wealthy can keep their loopholes and low tax rates and Halliburton can keep on being paid $100 to launder a pound of clothes for our soldiers.

In FY2010, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Interest payments, and other mandatory expenses totaled totaled 61% of the roughly $3.5 trillion budget.

The remainder of the budget was DOD at $689 billion and other Discretionary spending at $660 billion.

The deficit was FY2010 was $1.3 trillion.

So, you will need to completely eliminate the Department of Defense and end all other discretionary spending to balance the budget. Since that is very unlikely to ever occur, that leaves entitlement programs to be cut. That is just how it has to be.

 

[Openmind]

If we are running trillion dollar deficits due to worker salary, then yes...but that is not the case obviously.



In FY2010, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Interest payments, and other mandatory expenses totaled totaled 61% of the roughly $3.5 trillion budget.

The remainder of the budget was DOD at $689 billion and other Discretionary spending at $660 billion.

The deficit was FY2010 was $1.3 trillion.

So, you will need to completely eliminate the Department of Defense and end all other discretionary spending to balance the budget. Since that is very unlikely to ever occur, that leaves entitlement programs to be cut. That is just how it has to be.

And that is why it is not feasable. We obviously need to reach a balance budget by not only cutting spending, but also increasing revenues! And, at least until our economy is booming again. . .we need tax increase.
That's just how it has to be! A double approach, not just a spending cut!

 

[steveox]

OFF TOPIC! What does this have to do with Bill Maher Croseed the line?

 

[BigRob]

And that is why it is not feasable. We obviously need to reach a balance budget by not only cutting spending, but also increasing revenues! And, at least until our economy is booming again. . .we need tax increase.
That's just how it has to be! A double approach, not just a spending cut!

The plans thrown around call for only $4 trillion in cuts over ten years. That means only $400 billion a year (ignoring of course the $2.4 trillion in new spending,) so really we cut $160 billion a year when it's all said and done.

Even if you raise taxes by $5 trillion (a huge number), we end up with a budget deficit of still $600 billion. Where are those cuts going to come from?

 

[Openmind]

The plans thrown around call for only $4 trillion in cuts over ten years. That means only $400 billion a year (ignoring of course the $2.4 trillion in new spending,) so really we cut $160 billion a year when it's all said and done.

Even if you raise taxes by $5 trillion (a huge number), we end up with a budget deficit of still $600 billion. Where are those cuts going to come from?

No need to resolve the deficit in 1 year (impossible!), or even 5 years. . .but it sure would be a lot faster if we approached it from BOTH sides (cuts in spending and raise in revenue/taxes).

Neither can do it alone, but the two together would make a dent, a bigger dent year after year.

It's not because "something" is not perfect that it couldn't be helpful!

 

[Openmind]

OFF TOPIC! What does this have to do with Bill Maher Croseed the line?

You got lots of answers on your OP. If you didn't like them, sorry about that. But in the mean time, I answered the latest post who was interesting!

Without that, your OP would have died long ago as being meaningless!