SnyderShrugged Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Haven't clicked on it yet, but here are my expectations: Reduce all taxes to 5% of income. No deductions. Get rid of all government agencies. Go back to days of horse and buggy and everyone farms their own food. Then the farmer barters with the doc for health care, etc. Ok, clicking in 3...2.... [After click] 1... Have the US Government default on purpose? Really? Yes, default on the $1.7T interest owed to the Fed (money in effect, owed to ourselves) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Yes, default on the $1.7T interest owed to the Fed (money in effect, owed to ourselves) What good would that do? Has the US government ever paid the fed any money? (Okay, read the link. Makes more sense. Wouldn't even have to be a "default". The Fed and the US government could come to some sort of agreement about that debt.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Yes, default on the $1.7T interest owed to the Fed (money in effect, owed to ourselves) End the Fed. Unique and new? Also, great hijack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 End the Fed. Unique and new?Also, great hijack. I dont believe I said "end the Fed" in this thread, have I? Not a hijack whatsoever, its a formally proposed idea to deal with the issue of debt and deficit. Sorry that gets your tights in a wad, but it is what it is, regardless. ---------- Post added July-6th-2011 at 01:18 PM ---------- What good would that do?Has the US government ever paid the fed any money? (Okay, read the link. Makes more sense. Wouldn't even have to be a "default". The Fed and the US government could come to some sort of agreement about that debt.) Thank You Peter! I'm glad you read the thought in the spirit it was offered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar78 Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Did he mention that increasing taxes and slashing spending at the same time is a good idea during a boom period so reduce debt, but potentially disastrous in the middle of a recession? Nobody seems to be mentioning that. Nothing about this mess is going to be easy. Default is potentially disastrous, doing nothing is potentially disastrous, doing what needs to be done is potentially disastrous. Doing what needs to be done will cause a lot of financial hurt in this for awhile (a lost decade?). I'm not sure there's an easy, magic bullet way around it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoVaO Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Demanding across the board tax creases would be a...unique political strategy. Well, this is not the time for that debate. That debate will come in 2012 when the tax cuts are set to expire -- again. And it will be similar to last time. The bottom line is that Obama doesn't have to lift a finger, and immediately all of the Bush tax cuts will expire, and our national debt will look a whole lot easier to manage. He can do this because 1. He'll campaign on letting tax cuts for the rich expire, and he will draw a line in the sand, at least rhetorically. 2. He'll only get to do this if he's re-elected, meaning he has no re-election campaign to worry about. He can actually try to raise revenue without having to endure the political ramifications for it. If he gets re-elected and the Republicans keep the House, I expect the entire Bush tax cuts to expire because I don't think Republicans will not send him anything other than tax cuts with the rich included. And then I predict they will negotiate another tax cut package with each other that doesn't benefit the rich so much. Obama not being up for re-election I actually think will allow Republicans to be at least a little more cooperative with Obama since their No. 1 goal (to ensure Obama is a 1-term President) wouldn't be a factor anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 I dont believe I said "end the Fed" in this thread, have I?Not a hijack whatsoever, its a formally proposed idea to deal with the issue of debt and deficit. Sorry that gets your tights in a wad, but it is what it is, regardless. ---------- Post added July-6th-2011 at 01:18 PM ---------- Thank You Peter! I'm glad you read the thought in the spirit it was offered. Well, having the Fed lose out on 1.7 trillion might cause it some problems, i.e. it would end it. Also, I'm not in a wad, but the thread is about an article written by David Brooks about how the GOP is way to unwilling to compromise, and you post a completely different article on how you think we can get out of debt in a totally different way. I like your persistence, but its a hijack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Nothing about this mess is going to be easy. Default is potentially disastrous, doing nothing is potentially disastrous, doing what needs to be done is potentially disastrous. Doing what needs to be done will cause a lot of financial hurt in this for awhile (a lost decade?). I'm not sure there's an easy, magic bullet way around it. Hate to say it, but a Lost Decade is already baked into the cake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Well, having the Fed lose out on 1.7 trillion might cause it some problems, i.e. it would end it.Nope, It wouldnt "end it" whatsoever, what makes you believe that? Also, I'm not in a wad, but the thread is about an article written by David Brooks about how the GOP is way to unwilling to compromise, and you post a completely different article on how you think we can get out of debt in a totally different way. I like your persistence, but its a hijack. Oh, a formal proposal from a 11 Term GOP Congressman, who is running for the GOP nomination for President is inappropriate in a thread about GOP's unwillingness to compromise on the issue of the debt problem? Interested to hear your logic there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Demanding across the board tax creases would be a...unique political strategy. True, but then I wouldn't care about getting reelected. I guess that would be unique, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 True, but then I wouldn't care about getting reelected. I guess that would be unique, huh? I'd vote for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Politics makes me sick sometimes. People just quibble about periphery issues, and make a big stink so as to give the illusion of controversy. Nobody ever talks about the real issues. If you really want to solve the budget problems, look at what you spend the most money on first. We spend an obscene amount of money on making war. The following is from http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm: We spend as much on defense as the next 15 countries combined. Maybe we could afford to make some cuts there, but that is not even considered an option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 From Warren Buffett: “I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.