Fix the Budget Deficit

Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 30, 2012, at 10:35 PM:

This link will allow you the work on reducing the deficit.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/...

My initial choices resulted in at 65% savings from spending cuts and a 35% savings from tax expenditures.

My savings in 2015 was $671 billion and for 2030 it was $1.99 trillion.

Replies

  • Why not just go all the way with Obamanomics and initiate a simple fair for all tax system in which whatever you earn, just send it in and the government can send it back to each citizen equally. [After shipping, handling and processing fees.]

    -- Posted by Old John on Fri, Nov 30, 2012, at 11:04 PM
  • BC, Was Twain really saying put a bunch of women together for a few months and sychronization happens automaticly? :)

    I had never read that and find it more proof that simple self logic trumps a lot of BS.

    Something comes to mind: "No one calls for justice, nor does any plead for truth. They trust in empty words and speak lies...."

    Mr. Clemmons, I think had a grasp on concrete bunker thought.

    -- Posted by Old John on Sat, Dec 1, 2012, at 12:46 AM
  • *

    I came up with a $418 billion 2015 shortfall, and a $1.39 trillion 2030 shortfall. 21% from taxes and %78% from cuts.

    That assumes, of course, that their projections have any accuracy at all.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Dec 1, 2012, at 9:05 AM
  • *

    BC,

    If that article was meant to be a comfort.... it wasn't!

    But I can see reality in it. From women's fashions to murder of the unborn. First we abhor it, then we accept it as the norm.

    So far as women's fashions go, I care little what someone wears or the lack of what they wear, so long as my wife, daughters or granddaughters are not involved.

    When it comes to some other issues, I absolutely draw the line on how far I will go to be popular.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Dec 1, 2012, at 9:28 AM
  • *

    My result was "Non-Applicable".

    -- Posted by Simon Jester on Sat, Dec 1, 2012, at 10:30 AM
  • *

    You think this is hard now. Wait until they find they miscalculated the cost of Obamacare by 500%+. Then try it again.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sat, Dec 1, 2012, at 6:55 PM
  • *

    "First we abhor it, then we accept it as the norm."-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Dec 1, 2012, at 9:28 AM

    Wheels - kind of in line with a piece of wisdom passed along to me - what one generation tolerates, the next accepts.

    Have to keep in mind the link is from 2010 -- back when 'cash for clunkers' vehicles were still relatively new... :-)~

    -- Posted by fxpwt on Sat, Dec 1, 2012, at 7:10 PM
  • *

    CommonSense, you'll be the death of me yet. I practically laughed myself to death reading your brainless posting.

    -- Posted by voyager on Sun, Dec 2, 2012, at 9:07 PM
  • "...keep in mind the link is from 2010..."

    The original date is irrelevant. The basic principles and objectives are no different today than they were two years ago. The bottom line is that the goal remains unchanged, i.e. reducing the deficit and working toward a balanced budget. To achieve that objective, a both spending cuts and tax increases need to be part of the solution.

    The link gives anyone an opportunity to experiment with different combinations of actions, to bring the deficit down. The most rational mix appears to be 33% tax increases and 67% spending cuts.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Dec 3, 2012, at 8:24 AM
  • *

    "The most rational mix appears to be 33% tax increases and 67% spending cuts."

    What makes that the most rational?

    Also, as is noted in the link, many of the spending cuts would be 'phased in', and thus not realize any savings until many years from now.

    The problem with this, as you well know, is that this Congress cannot impose dictates on future congresses. This Congress can agree to spending cuts 'in the future', but the next Congress can erase them, thus making the promise as empty as the hollow of ones' hand.

    Any spending cuts have to be made immediately, or the likelihood is they will never be made at all. The Democrats will 'compromise' on future cuts and then wipe them out in future budgets, if indeed they bother to pass future budgets. Based on their past actions, they have no interest in passing budgets, due to the requirements of living within the contraints they impose.

    This is why the 'fiscal cliff' is looking like the most promising - it imposes immediate cuts, and looks like the only way to get them.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Dec 3, 2012, at 8:54 AM
  • -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Dec 3, 2012, at 9:20 AM
  • *

    "The bottom line is that the goal remains unchanged, i.e. reducing the deficit and working toward a balanced budget."

    It is pretty funny hearing that from an Obama supporter.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Dec 3, 2012, at 4:31 PM
  • Here at the house we notice prices going up and figured out that we are spending more than we have coming in. Thus we have decided to cut our charge card purchases leading to a little less pork in the freezer and cutting our grown children's allowance back some. Meanwhile we intend to get a bank loan to stimulate our household checking account and help out the children until they get used to the smaller allowance and higher rent for their rooms.

    Wife says it's a good plan. Is it?

    -- Posted by Old John on Mon, Dec 3, 2012, at 11:09 PM
  • *

    Obama knows that we are headed for a financial disaster next year - a worsening recession that has more to do with his punishment of businesses, regulation and higher taxes. He knows this and nothing done to avoid the "fiscal cliff" will change that.

    So what does he do? He makes outrageous demands - like telling congress to give him unlimited borrowing power - knowing that republicans would never agree to that. So when the fiscal cliff occurs he can blame republicans instead of his failed policies over the past 4 years.

    Do you know how many trillions in additional tax dollars would be generated if Obama simply let capitalism work and increase our dismal GDP by 2%? Trillions? With no tax rate increases.

    You democrats asked for this anti-capitalist marxist community organizer. All you'll get from him his rhetoric and anti-business regulations. Own it.

    -- Posted by Dug on Tue, Dec 4, 2012, at 10:26 AM
  • *

    What do you think will happen? Do you believe republicans will agree to a tax rate increase on the upper 2%? Or less cuts to entitlement programs/military?

    -- Posted by Dug on Tue, Dec 4, 2012, at 11:08 AM
  • *

    Despite Dramatic Fluctuations in Top Marginal Rate, Federal Revenue Remains Flat:

    http://mercatus.org/publication/despite-...

    "From 1930 to 2012, tax revenue has never topped 20.9 percent of GDP, and over those 82 years, it averaged 16.5 percent of GDP. Since 1981, it has remained below 19 percent on average (see dotted blue line).

    "In stark contrast, the rate of income taxation on the highest-earning Americans has fluctuated dramatically--from 25 percent of income in 1930 to 92 percent of income in the early 1950s. In spite of these fluctuations in the top marginal rates, the amounts that the federal government has collected have remained flat.

    "It is spending, not revenue, that has deviated from its historical path. Spending must be addressed to rectify the ailing budget."

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Dec 4, 2012, at 11:49 AM
  • *

    What is long forgotten is the fact that part of the driver for the Bush Tax Cuts was the fact that the Congress, both parties of Congress, were clamouring for ways to spend the 'peace dividend', with nearly all ideas reflecting entitlement growth - spending that would grow and keep growing long after the surplus created by the 'peace dividend' was gone.

    President Bush fought for the tax cuts in order to take the money from Washington lest they continue to raise spending to exceed the 'windfall' the end of the Cold War had brought about.

    "During the budget debates in Washington, some Members of Congress complained that they did not have enough money to spend, but in 2001 the income tax will yield 2 billion in revenues for each and every one of the 535 Members of Congress. I think they should be able to get by on that--[laughter]--even the Senators. [Laughter] No, enough's enough. People in America deserve tax relief.

    "Thanks to the help of a lot of folks here and all around the country, tax relief is on the way. The American taxpayer won some important victories a couple of weeks ago. The House of Representatives voted in favor of a plan that I think is an important plan, 1.6 trillion in tax relief over the next 10 years. The Senate approved most of my tax plan but wants the Government to spend far more.

    "Some Members of the Senate are, unfortunately, proving the point I make all across the country: If you send it, they will spend it. [Laughter] Federal discretionary spending rose by 8 percent in 2001. The Senate has just voted to increase the discretionary spending by another 8 percent in 2002. At that rate, Federal discretionary spending will double by 2010. Think about that. If we keep spending at the pace the Senate wants, in only 9 years' time Government operations will cost twice as much as they do today."

    - President George W. Bush Remarks to the United States Chamber of Commerce, April 16, 2001 -

    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index....

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Dec 4, 2012, at 2:12 PM

Respond to this thread

Posting a comment requires free registration: