Obama's deficit Reduction PLAN

[AsburySkinsFan]

Classic GOP

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-13/obama-embraces-individual-u-s-tax-code-rewrite-to-raise-revenue.html

Republicans, including House Speaker John Boehner and Senator Orrin Hatch, rejected Obama’s argument that tax increases should be part of a deficit-reduction package.

You simply can't cut THAT much unless you kill Medicare and Medicaid and SSI, but then that's what the GOP wants to do. The GOP are playing stupid here, and in all of two minutes they're going to say that closing loopholes and eliminating tax breaks are going to cost the US jobs...the only problem is that the loopholes and the tax breaks didn't create jobs it just increased more profits for business owners who pocketed the difference and left the unemployment high. The GOP would have us believe that companies actually care about the unemployment rate, they don't they only care about being as efficient as possible for as little as possible.

[@DCGoldPants]

Yeah, Hatch has a leg to stand on here.

"it was standard practice not to pay for things," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "We were concerned about it, because it certainly added to the deficit, no question." His 2003 vote has been vindicated, Hatch said, because the prescription drug benefit "has done a lot of good."

[deejaydana]

this speech was incredibly empty and absent of substantive details. Something I've come to expect from this CIC. I didn't expect a shift further left but that's what it felt like to me.

[DRSmith]

Ok, so you think there is a way for us to keep taxes low. Setting aside the long term debt and just focusing on the annual deficit, you think that cutting military spending would enable us to drastically cut government spending.

But how much is left? After the military is cut, how much of the GDP do you think the government should tax and spend?

If you pay off you debt you can cut tax on the portion that goes to pay interest on the debt which would cut the need for over 400 billion dollars

Taxation should be at level that keeps money flowing, if it gets too low like it is now and the money is not flowing to create jobs then it can go higher if it gets to high or too much of it leaving the country vi interest to other nations, foriegn aid and wars then you have to make adjustments.

[Larry]

Yes, without our tens of thousands of troops in Germany, the Germans would quickly be overrun by those damn Commies.

From what I read at the time, a big percentage (like half?) of the troops and equipment used in Desert Storm went through Germany. And a very large percentage of our medical personnel came from there, and many wounded were treated there.

I'm certainly not an expert on the subject, but that's what I remember reading, at the time.

---------- Post added April-14th-2011 at 07:42 PM ----------

That is sorta what I'm saying though I would be careful with how much you defund them. I'm not saying that EVERY overseas base is needed. But overseas bases in general are needed.

Oh, I assume that a lot of our bases are kind of like a lot of domestic bases: They're there for lots of non-military reasons. Politics. Spreading money into another country. Things like that.

(For example, as near as I can tell, the only reason we have a base in GTMO is because it pisses Castro off. Is that really something that justifies the cost?)

OTOH, my armchair-general gut says that if I were President, there's a lot of bases in the US I'd close before I downgraded Diego Garcia. Maybe it's just me, but having a base in the center of the Indian Ocean is simply too handy to have, for getting to all kinds of places.

----------

Edit:

BTW, there used to be somebody who kept pointing people at a tool the NYT created, where people could experiment with various options, and look at how they would affect the deficit. But I didn't bookmark the thing, and I can't remember where it is.

Please consider this a request to post the thing again. (I promise I'll bookmark it this time.)

[The Sisko]

You can "Beg to differ" all you like, but its foolish since I clearly posted "slowly draw down" and never said 100% cut.

Thats your problem with assuming and making up things not mine. I'm very comfortable that my very words show that you are incorrect (and you have posted them twice now and still have trouble reading them I guess)

Back to the standard formula, eh? That is, deny you said something when someone calls you on it, then deny it again, insult them and then say they must not have read your post and that they're "putting words in your mouth". Yeah, whatever.

First and foremost, I'd pass an ammendment that does not allow any more borrowing. Period. Until things are back under control.

OK, so let's take the above as one example. I realize that in your mind you didn't actually say this, but bear with me for a minute. This idea sounds great in the abstract, until one actually thinks about what it would actually mean. It would mean the govt. would have to balance the budget overnight. For comparison's sake, even the wild promises of the Tea Party to slash govt. spending by $100 billion in one budget cycle pale in comparison to what you're talking about here. How so? Well the actual deficit number for the last budget was $1.1-1.4 trillion.

The redundant and ineffective programs you cited should absolutely be targets for fixing. However removing all that only accounts for $100-$200 billion. Worth doing but still not going to get us where you want to go.

Unfortunately the only way we could do what you suggest here is to dramatically raise taxes on everyone, while simultaneously slashing everything the govt. spends money on, especially social security, medicare, the military, along with all the "minor" stuff that Congress practically went to war over in the past few weeks. Now I realize you never said "slowly draw down" (even though you quoted yourself on it) but I'd characterize that as anything but a slow draw down of spending.

It's comments like the above that informed my opinion that you're further right than the great majority of the country and why I said your dreams of a Dickensian, isolationist, laissez-faire America are bound to go unfulfilled...because nobody but you and a very small number of ultra purist libertarians wants it.

In any event, I guess this is where you deny you said what I quoted above, call me stupid and tell me to read what you actually wrote. Well, sorry to interrupt. Back to your warm comfy delusions then.

[mardi gras skin]

BTW, there used to be somebody who kept pointing people at a tool the NYT created, where people could experiment with various options, and look at how they would affect the deficit. But I didn't bookmark the thing, and I can't remember where it is.

Please consider this a request to post the thing again. (I promise I'll bookmark it this time.)

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

I keep coming away with about 70 to 80 percent in spending cuts and 20 to 30% in tax increases.

What a fun little tool. I get wistful every time I plug the numbers.

[Hubbs]

From what I read at the time, a big percentage (like half?) of the troops and equipment used in Desert Storm went through Germany. And a very large percentage of our medical personnel came from there, and many wounded were treated there.

I'm certainly not an expert on the subject, but that's what I remember reading, at the time.

And if we didn't have tens of thousands of troops in Germany, we still could have pulled off Desert Storm. The fact that we sent troops over in the most convenient way possible isn't remarkable.

Oh, I assume that a lot of our bases are kind of like a lot of domestic bases: They're there for lots of non-military reasons. Politics. Spreading money into another country. Things like that.

(For example, as near as I can tell, the only reason we have a base in GTMO is because it pisses Castro off. Is that really something that justifies the cost?)

OTOH, my armchair-general gut says that if I were President, there's a lot of bases in the US I'd close before I downgraded Diego Garcia. Maybe it's just me, but having a base in the center of the Indian Ocean is simply too handy to have, for getting to all kinds of places.

Agree about Diego Garcia. I don't have a problem with that one.

Edit:

BTW, there used to be somebody who kept pointing people at a tool the NYT created, where people could experiment with various options, and look at how they would affect the deficit. But I didn't bookmark the thing, and I can't remember where it is.

Please consider this a request to post the thing again. (I promise I'll bookmark it this time.)

I remember it, too. Liked it a lot.

[sacase]

And if we didn't have tens of thousands of troops in Germany, we still could have pulled off Desert Storm. The fact that we sent troops over in the most convenient way possible isn't remarkable.

Agree about Diego Garcia. I don't have a problem with that one.

I remember it, too. Liked it a lot.

Most of the troops in germany are not combat troops, they have moved a lot of those back to the states. Many of the bases we have over there are actually fairly small, at least on the Army side. I would guess that Ramstein is probably the largest base we have there and it is an essential transit point for the airforce and military in general. Our foot print is not as large as it has been in the past.

[Hubbs]

Most of the troops in germany are not combat troops, they have moved a lot of those back to the states. Many of the bases we have over there are actually fairly small, at least on the Army side. I would guess that Ramstein is probably the largest base we have there and it is an essential transit point for the airforce and military in general. Our foot print is not as large as it has been in the past.

Essential? Really? Do you know how many ways we have of transporting troops around the world? How many ways we have of striking innumerable targets all over the planet from the sky and the sea? And perhaps most importantly, how many bases our NATO allies have should we be involved in a NATO operation, and how quickly they'd ask us back if a truly dire situation arose?

You have a warped definition of "essential" if you think we couldn't be militarily secure and maintain worldwide operations without a big base in the middle of a giant group of allies.

[chipwhich]

Essential? Really? Do you know how many ways we have of transporting troops around the world? How many ways we have of striking innumerable targets all over the planet from the sky and the sea? And perhaps most importantly, how many bases our NATO allies have should we be involved in a NATO operation, and how quickly they'd ask us back if a truly dire situation arose?

You have a warped definition of "essential" if you think we couldn't be militarily secure and maintain worldwide operations without a big base in the middle of a giant group of allies.

Do you have any basis for this spouting? Or are you just spouting?

Please give me facts not opinions. Thanks!

[Burgold]

Well the military hospital in Ramstein was pretty invaluable. Saved an incredible number of our men and women. After someone was injured, they'd be treated in the field and then sent over to Ramstein where they would be stabalized and often have their first surgeries. In the hot part of the war, they worked with tens of thousands of troops. That time difference of transporting them to Germany vs transporting them to DC or Bethesda was huge.

It was crazy though. By 2005, the hospital was running really bare bones. They actually approached the charity I was helping with and asked for printer ink. I think they had no idea the kind of numbers and demand that would run through there. Both they and the CASF at Andrew's got overwhelmed. At least based on what I saw and was privately told. At the same time, you'll rarely meet more dedicated, hard working, compassionate people. I always left impressed with the nurses and doctors.

[SnyderShrugged]

Back to the standard formula, eh? That is, deny you said something when someone calls you on it, then deny it again, insult them and then say they must not have read your post and that they're "putting words in your mouth". Yeah, whatever.

Are you really seriously trying to claim that after posting the very words that were proof that you were incorrect? seriously, how is saying, (and this is a verbatim quote) "slowly draw down" in your mind equal to "full cut"? Especially after additional explanation was provided TWICE. It's actually comical now watching you do back flips trying to say that I said something different after posting my exact words that prove you wrong. You can say a lie many times but it will never make it true. If you desire to claim you arent intentionally lting at this point, it is incumbent upon you to post where I said that I wanted to eliminate every single federal program, You cant and thus you wont.

OK, so let's take the above as one example. I realize that in your mind you didn't actually say this, but bear with me for a minute. This idea sounds great in the abstract, until one actually thinks about what it would actually mean. It would mean the govt. would have to balance the budget overnight. For comparison's sake, even the wild promises of the Tea Party to slash govt. spending by $100 billion in one budget cycle pale in comparison to what you're talking about here. How so? Well the actual deficit number for the last budget was $1.1-1.4 trillion.

Cant stop bleeding to death until you staunch the flow. Its simple kindergarten math and nothing you say about its impossibility, regardless of your errant opinion, cannot change that fact. The fact that you feel this way already shows your unwillingness to address the root issue in our economy.

The redundant and ineffective programs you cited should absolutely be targets for fixing. However removing all that only accounts for $100-$200 billion. Worth doing but still not going to get us where you want to go.

I believe I specifically said it was just one piece of an idea, not one in its entirety.

Unfortunately the only way we could do what you suggest here is to dramatically raise taxes on everyone, while simultaneously slashing everything the govt. spends money on, especially social security, medicare, the military, along with all the "minor" stuff that Congress practically went to war over in the past few weeks. Now I realize you never said "slowly draw down" (even though you quoted yourself on it) but I'd characterize that as anything but a slow draw down of spending.

No, thats is not true at all. That is simply your opinion and a wrong one at that. ASlso let me post the quote so you can stop your nonsense lies.

Post #43 in this thread...

"You wont get any argument from me about cutting defense spending and I . if we brought all our troops home and close many unneeded overseas bases. I'd even be open to tax increases but only after the spending is reduced by dramatic levels with no sacred cows left untouched. I'd even support maintaining domestic programsfor a while as long as a phase down slowly plan is in place to ease the transition for those who have become dependent on them. if we brought all our troops home and close many unneeded overseas bases."

I'll take your apology anytime.

It's comments like the above that informed my opinion that you're further right than the great majority of the country and why I said your dreams of a Dickensian, isolationist, laissez-faire America are bound to go unfulfilled...because nobody but you and a very small number of ultra purist libertarians wants it.

Yes, I probably am further right than most of America. Most of America has been fine with out of control spending and forever creeping Federal power for years. A few of us have the honesty to acknowledge that what has and is being done is not working. See economy for evidence. Unless you are claiming all is groovy and status quo is great?

In any event, I guess this is where you deny you said what I quoted above, call me stupid and tell me to read what you actually wrote. Well, sorry to interrupt. Back to your warm comfy delusions then.

I wont call you stupid because I dont think you are. I will, however call you lazy because its obvious that you didnt actually read my post and inserted whatever opinion that you felt I had rather than the one I actually said I had. (So will you choose to ignore my words for yet another silly moment or will you suck it up and admit that you overlooked my exact words that you yourself quoted and that I have gone to great lengths to show you that I said.)

[Thiebear]

I've brought up the NYTimes widgets budget cut tool many many times.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

Seems like a 'common sense' approach that has full transparency and thus will never be used.

Instead we will fight over the nuance as the 1000pd rock falls on us.

[SnyderShrugged]

I've brought up the NYTimes widgets budget cut tool many many times.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

Seems like a 'common sense' approach that has full transparency and thus will never be used.

Instead we will fight over the nuance as the 1000pd rock falls on us.

But didnt someone recently in this thread say that it would be impossible to balance the budget?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Wow, what has happened to me?!?! I want to want to be in this thread but I just don't have the energy, cutting the deficit isn't going to happen and they're just going to scream at each other for the next year and a half and we're just going to keep wasting money and both sides are going to keep blaming the other side because both understand that whoever sits down at the table 2nd loses.

They can all go get bent!

[mardi gras skin]

Essential? Really? Do you know how many ways we have of transporting troops around the world?

And you're sure the best, most cost effect way to do that is to close down Ramstein.

[Stillers6SB]

And you're sure the best, most cost effect way to do that is to close down Ramstein.

Or just don't transport them all over the world in the first place to participate in unnecessary wars!

We shouldn't be killing people all over the globe (for the sake of bloody oil) for the sake of freedom/patriotism/democracy.

[Larry]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

I keep coming away with about 70 to 80 percent in spending cuts and 20 to 30% in tax increases.

What a fun little tool. I get wistful every time I plug the numbers.

Heck, I made a really big dent in things:

• Eliminate farm subsidies
  
• Reduce military to pre-Iraq War size and further reduce troops in Asia and Europe
  
• Increase the Medicare eligibility age to 70
  
• Reduce the tax break for employer-provided health insurance
  
• Raise the Social Security retirement age to 70
  
• Reduce Social Security benefits for those with high incomes.
  
• President Obama's proposal (Estate tax)
  
• Return rates to Clinton-era levels (investment income)
  
• Allow expiration for income above $250,000 a year (Bush tax cuts)
  
• Payroll tax: Subject some incomes above $106,000 to tax
  I thought people were talking about completely eliminating the ceiling on SS taxes, which I had a moral problem with. But this proposal is simply to raise the existing ceiling until it once again applies to 90% of all income. And I could go with that.

  
  

• Millionaire's tax on income above $1 million (I'd want to phase it in, considering how fragile the economy is.)
  
• Reduce mortgage deduction and others for high-income households (wouldn't mind seeing some specifics. "High-income households" covers a lot of ground.)
  
• Bank Tax. (Heck, I support the idea of a "big corporation tax". I think big corporations threaten the economy and the political process.)

I've turned the 2015 deficit from $418B to $3B, and the 2030 deficit from $1,345B to $162.

Heck, this is easy. (I suspect deceptively so.)

---------- Post added April-15th-2011 at 09:55 AM ----------

Well the military hospital in Ramstein was pretty invaluable. Saved an incredible number of our men and women. After someone was injured, they'd be treated in the field and then sent over to Ramstein where they would be stabalized and often have their first surgeries. In the hot part of the war, they worked with tens of thousands of troops. That time difference of transporting them to Germany vs transporting them to DC or Bethesda was huge.

It was crazy though. By 2005, the hospital was running really bare bones. They actually approached the charity I was helping with and asked for printer ink. I think they had no idea the kind of numbers and demand that would run through there. Both they and the CASF at Andrew's got overwhelmed. At least based on what I saw and was privately told. At the same time, you'll rarely meet more dedicated, hard working, compassionate people. I always left impressed with the nurses and doctors.

That was one of the things I'd heard.

That, to me, is the kind of thing that we ought to be doing, in lots of places. I think we should be building "empty bases": Places that have big airfields, lots of pre-positioned equipment and supplies, big power and water supplies, a big hospital (which mostly sits empty), lots of barracks (which mostly sit empty).

Everything you need to project force, except the people. You staff it with enough people to keep the place maintained. Maybe you keep a permanent training cadre, and you rotate lots of your troops over there for training.

If there's a problem, then you fly a bunch of troops over there, and everything else they need is already waiting.

It's not exactly free. It's going to cost money. But you don't need to keep 50,000 troops over there. You have enough infrastructure to support 50,000 troops, and a staff of a few thousand.

[Stadium-Armory]

Meh..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/deal-includes-86b-in-cuts-that-likely-would-never-have-been-spent/2011/04/12/AFFbG4bD_story.html?hpid=z1

Budget deal: CBO analysis shows initial spending cuts less than expected

By David A. Fahrenthold, Thursday, April 14, 9:01 PM

A federal budget compromise that was hailed as historic for proposing to cut about $38 billion would reduce federal spending by only $352 million this fiscal year, less than 1 percent of the bill’s advertised amount, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Although that analysis dampened enthusiasm for the deal among many Republicans on Thursday, the House and the Senate approved the measure with bipartisan support. President Obama is expected to sign the bill Friday, officially ending the prospect of a government shutdown.

The findings from the budget office warned that the deal may never come close to delivering on its promises. The analysts found that $13 billion to $18 billion of the cuts involve money that existed only on paper and was unlikely to be tapped in the next decade.

The shrinking appearance of the reductions changed Thursday’s atmospherics on Capitol Hill. Just days after he was hailed for “winning” negotiations with the White House and Senate Democrats, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) was making a last-minute plea for votes from members of his party.

In the end, about one-quarter of House Republicans voted against the bill. That total included 28 of the 87 Republican freshmen, who had won election by promising that the solutions were simple — it was how Washington works that was unnecessarily complicated.

For some, the news of this accounting alchemy showed how complicated the place remains, even with them in it.

“It was a factor in what pushed me toward ‘no,’ ” said Rep. Joe Walsh (Ill.), one of 28 Republican freshmen who voted against the deal. “This is just the way that both parties have done business for a long time. And I just don’t want to be a part of that stuff.”

Boehner rejected the idea that the cuts were not as large as they appeared. Rather, he said, the impact could be much larger: In part because it would shrink the baseline budget left to future Congresses, it might save up to $315 billion over 10 years.

“There are some who claim that the spending cuts in this bill aren’t real, that they’re gimmicks,” Boehner said in a speech before the House’s vote. “Well, I just think it’s total nonsense. A cut is a cut.”

The problem — in the murky mathematics of the federal budget — is that not all “spending” is really spending.

Understanding why requires knowing that the government does not work like a savings bank. Agencies do not have their own checking accounts, fattened up

every year with new money from Congress.

Instead, Congress usually gives agencies the authority to draw from Uncle Sam’s one gigantic checking account. That is the Treasury’s General Fund, which is constantly taking in taxes, fees and borrowed money.

The agencies can’t take money out of this fund until they’re ready to spend it.

And that’s where it becomes complicated.

Sometimes, agencies aren’t ready to spend the money until a year, or longer, after Congress gives them their IOU. That’s not a problem when an agency makes a one-time purchase for something like pencils. Officials call a supplier, get their pencils and write a check, and the money is gone.

But it works differently when the government buys an aircraft carrier.

“The final check doesn’t go out until the carrier has gone through sea trials,” said Scott Lilly, a budget expert at the liberal Center for American Progress. “And that’s about six years later.”

The compromise bill has canceled some of these long-term IOUs. These are real cuts, experts say: They stop spending that was going to happen. But they aren’t counted in the current fiscal year, because the money was going to be spent later.

That’s part of the reason why just $352 million in the cuts will be felt during fiscal 2011. In fact, when “emergency” money for military action is factored in, the overall spending for this fiscal year may actually increase, by more than $3 billion.

Then there are the cases where IOUs were sitting idle and un-used.

This might be because a project was finished under budget, with some money left over. It might also be because a project was cancelled, or because an agency simply chose not to do something that Congress gave it money to do.

The result is leftover budget authority. Some expire at the end of the fiscal year. But others roll over, which can leave agencies with rainy-day funds filled with billions in theoretical money.

The compromise bill canceled some of these IOUs, too. But, experts say, these shouldn’t count like the others: It’s not exactly a cut if the money was never going to be spent.

“There was permission to spend money, but there were never actual dollars allocated,” said Brian Riedl of the conservative Heritage Foundation. “It’s kind of like a parent saying, ‘If you go buy something, I’ll pay the credit card for you.’ And then the kid never goes out and buys it.”

A Washington Post analysis of the 459-page budget revealed at least 98 cases in which Congress took back unused IOUs and called it a cut.

In some instances, federal agencies said they really were about to use the money. At U.S. Customs and Border Protection, for instance, a spokesman said the loss of a $10 million IOU would delay the replacement of aging equipment. The Census Bureau lost $50 million it was planning to spend on support personnel and things such as IT infrastructure.

But in other cases, the IOUs seemed unlikely to be cashed in.

The compromise budget, for instance, takes $560 million from the Academic Competitiveness and SMART programs, which gave grants to college undergraduates.

But the programs are set to end after this school year. And

the Education Department has enough cash to cover the remaining grants. “We would not have used this money,” a spokesman said.

At the Treasury Department, Congress gave itself credit for rescinding $423 million from a program that uses forfeited assets to aid criminal investigations.

But there, too, the cut was less impressive than it sounds. Last year was a banner year for forfeited assets: The fund took in $1.2 billion after a series of financial-crime cases and found it had far more money than it could use.

At the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Air Marshal Service lost $2.4 million and the Coast Guard $13.5 million. But both already had enough money to cover expenses, a spokesman said. “There is no impact.”

Congress took back one IOU from . . . itself.

When the Capitol Visitor Center was under construction, lawmakers allotted $621 million to pay for it. The project wound up costing less than $600 million. In the compromise budget, lawmakers took back $15 million of the unused budget authority.

Spokesmen for both parties in Congress defended these moves this week, saying it was a good thing to take back authority that federal agencies might have eventually used.

“They prevent Washington bureaucrats from spending money,” said Michael Steel, a spokesman for Boehner.

“Is it a taxpayer dollar? Then it counts,” said Jon Summers, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). He said that if the IOUs weren’t revoked, agencies could have found ways to spend the money — turning it from theoretical to real.

“I mean, is it better to just leave the money sitting there?” he said.

fahrenthold@washpost.com

Staff writers Philip Rucker and Felicia Sonmez contributed to this report.

[sacase]

Essential? Really? Do you know how many ways we have of transporting troops around the world? How many ways we have of striking innumerable targets all over the planet from the sky and the sea? And perhaps most importantly, how many bases our NATO allies have should we be involved in a NATO operation, and how quickly they'd ask us back if a truly dire situation arose?

You have a warped definition of "essential" if you think we couldn't be militarily secure and maintain worldwide operations without a big base in the middle of a giant group of allies.

Yes essential. Having spent a fair amout of time in the Army and now working for DoD I have a pretty good idea what our capabilities are.

you keep spouting NATO operations, what about if we decide in the interest of national security we need to do something that our NATO allies do not support? How are we going to get it done Bases like Ramstein are extreamly important. Have you even BEEN to any of the bases in Germany. How big is patch barracks? How big is Panzer Kasern? Probably the only large training area in Germany that is big is Hoensfeld. You need a point that you can refuel planes and having to ask permission or negotiate can put a damper on military action which may be more costly in the end. Bases like Ramstein are essential in power projection capabilities. So yes closing down Ramstein without a viable alternative is important. Plus we need a way to quickly get troops into a theater. Yes the 18th Airborne Corp can be anywhere in the world in 18 hours, but those are light infantry, they can probably hold out for a week, give or take without other support. They are designed to hit airfield so we can bring in heavier units. So I suggest you brush up on military logistics, maybe do a stint at TRANSCOM and get the real scoop.

[88Comrade2000]

Why would any effective or efficient party wish to rely on money they dont have to pay bills that arent essential?

Of course the desire should be to pay it all off and work only within our actual means.

Why do you assume that the dollar will remain the "common currency of trade?" when we literally owe trillions to other nations?

The dollar is done and once that happens more pain will occur. The other nations are already making moves to end the dollar as the world currency. Eventually, that day will come; sooner than later.

---------- Post added April-15th-2011 at 05:15 PM ----------

Don't mind cutting defense spending, in fact it's needed. But if you're going to do that, how bout bringing the service people home from Iraq,Afghan., and Libya first?

What about Germany and Japan? WW2 ended in 1945. Korea - War ended in 1953. Our 30,000 or so troops there wouldn't stop a NK invasion of SK. Europe- Soviets have been gone for nearly 20 years. I doubt Russia will invade Europe.

---------- Post added April-15th-2011 at 05:24 PM ----------

Not so much that but it is designed to keep the area in check. Things would run a lot more rampant if they knew it would take us a week to get there to do something about it.

If we are going "bankrupt" it doesn't matter where our troops are. But it costs less to swat China from Germany then to move all those troops and supplies back to the USA just to move them back again a year later.

Any war the US has with Russia or China will be nuclear. China is building up their capabilities for a reason.

[Thiebear]

wasn't there already a budget put forward with nothing really in it? http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/14/news/economy/wacky_budget_cuts/index.htm

Is he going for a mulligan? Though i agree with the congress farmers

[DRSmith]

I think the tax on investments and interests should be raised dramatically, and then look at lowering the tax on income.

Money that people work hard to earn is not the same as money that is earned by taking from others or profiting from the labour of others.

[deejaydana]

I think the tax on investments and interests should be raised dramatically, and then look at lowering the tax on income.

Money that people work hard to earn is not the same as money that is earned by taking from others or profiting from the labour of others.

I just don't agree with this line of thinking. I've worked hard for all the money I've earned and it still makes me seeth when I cash out Roths or other investments so the gov't can tax me again on money I've already worked hard to gain. I know you're a union loyalists and how are they not (regularly) taking from others?