GOLFMK8
GOLFMK7
GOLFMK6
GOLFMKV

Off-Topic Thread #4!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bender1

Banned
[politics]
The issue with sequestration isn't the cuts, it is that the cuts are across the board and filter down to EVERY job function. It is as granular as they have to spend 9% less on toilet paper for the rest of the year.

Cuts of this magnitude are not an issue, its the implementation of them.

The other side of this issue is that Boehner has lost total control of his caucus. He is putting it on the Senate because he can't get anything done, even though it is his responsibility. The White House can suggest budgets all day, the Senate can moderate them all day, but Boehner can't even bring 17 freaking votes to the table so there is no reason to do anything until he can.

The right has created a mess for themselves here and they are too polarized and inexperienced at the local level to figure out the way out (which is very simple).

[/politics]
 

KurtP1

Go Kart Champion
Boehner is a jackass, for sure. But legally it is the responsibility and a requirement of the senate to draft the budgets and they arent even drafting them. They are trying to do more extensions or modifications to the existing budget which has us spending 50%+ more than we take in. Its economically unsustainable.

The things that are being proposed and given to Boehner shouldnt be approved. Im glad there is opposition to it. Sequestration is preferrable to the nonesense liberal dems/repubs want, which is more taxes more spending and more debt.

Secondly, again, there are no budget cuts. Its a cut in the projected rated of spending growth.
 

Bender1

Banned
Boehner is a jackass, for sure. But legally it is the responsibility and a requirement of the senate to draft the budgets.
Its actually the house and senate budget committees responsibility 50/50. I am not saying that they are not to blame, I am saying that Boehner needs to take the responsibility to get 17 votes together.

More taxes are a must, period. My effective tax rate is sickeningly low. Spending cuts are a must too, frankly bigger cuts than the sequester, but they must be done appropriately rather than across the board.
 

KurtP1

Go Kart Champion
That is absurd. You cannot raise enough tax to cover the government expenditures. You could tax rich people into oblivion and not balance your budget and cover the debt. Show me the effective tax rate that is going to work....the answer is spending under control and doing away with the progressive tax code. Im not willing to support paying anything more in taxation until we see responsibility with what is being paid already.

yes both committees draft budgets, but the senate hasnt done it, and anything they have concocted isnt realistic. If boehner gets his way, then it will be all spending and taxing and no cuts.

We are not a low tax society. We are a high tax society and we spend too much.
 

Bender1

Banned
That is absurd. You cannot raise enough tax to cover the government expenditures. You could tax rich people into oblivion and not balance your budget and cover the debt. Show me the effective tax rate that is going to work..

Not sure if you missed this part:

Spending cuts are a must too, frankly bigger cuts than the sequester, but they must be done appropriately rather than across the board.

Just as you say that you can't tax enough to fix the issue (which is true) you also can't cut enough to fix the issue.

Cuts and increases work hand in hand to a point where you can decrease taxes in the future. Its not a hard path forward, it is just politically unpopular.
 

KurtP1

Go Kart Champion
Federal spending needs to be reduced by nearly, if not, 50% and a tax code that makes sense implemented.
 

KurtP1

Go Kart Champion
Not sure if you missed this part:



Just as you say that you can't tax enough to fix the issue (which is true) you also can't cut enough to fix the issue.

Cuts and increases work hand in hand to a point where you can decrease taxes in the future. Its not a hard path forward, it is just politically unpopular.

I didnt miss it, but you absolutely can cut your way to where we need to be.
 

KurtP1

Go Kart Champion

KurtP1

Go Kart Champion
My first instinct is to question the 50% number, but its not one I totally disagree with, so the real question is this.

HOW?

Start off by zeroing recurring federal stimulus spending thats been added to the baseline. Reform the policies that the DoD work under for contract procurement and material purchasing. Slash social welfare spending to the bone. Cut out all the high society living politicians get on our dime.

Done.

Unfortunately that is nearly impossible because the liberals have the 'wheres my free shit' crowd wound so tight no politician that ever has the courage to do that will see the lights of a political office space.
 

Bender1

Banned
Think of it this way:

Defense makes up 20% of the budget, so lets cut that by 30% - so you have just saved 7% on the total budget.

Social Security - 20% of the budget - 99.1% of dollars spent on the program are disbursements to those that paid in. So you can only work on cutting .9% of it. So lets say we cut a full 1% of social security costs. You have reduced the federal budget by .2%. Why can't you cut disbursements? Because this is a fund we have paid into. Cutting disbursements is an effective tax increase! Playing by the rules of no tax increases, this is a no no.

Lets totally eliminate Medicare/Medicaid (20%). Like gone gone gone gone.

You have now cut 27.2% of the federal budget and we had to totally ignore the laws of unintended consequences.

This is a FAR more complicated exercise than anyone wants to let on.
 

KurtP1

Go Kart Champion
You are probably at a 10% reduction, maybe 15%.


Welfare and entitlement spending accounted for 61.9% of federal expenditures in 2012.


Federal spending has grown ~30% per household in the last 10 years.

The model of having $10k in national debt per household is absolutely unsustainable. There is no way around it, things have to get cut and go to the wayside. There is no taxing and spending everyone to prosperity.

The projected rate of growth of these programs has us on collision course with disaster. There isn't enough GLOBAL GDP to support the planned spending over the next 10 years.
 

KurtP1

Go Kart Champion
If you want to roll back across the board, you could roll us back to 2002 levels of spending and that would just about balance the yearly budget....the issue of course there is no payments being made on the national debt.
 

Bender1

Banned
Welfare and entitlement spending accounted for 61.9% of federal expenditures in 2012.
That isn't even close to accurate and your other points are not debating any part of this conversation. You are parroting talking points.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top