Fiscal Cliff Poll: Americans Dislike Both Budget Proposals - Page 2 - New England Patriots Forums

Real World · 12-06-2012, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IcyPatriot

Actually we need the fiscal cliff more than we need an agreement.

Taxes will go up and the budget will be slashed more than any cliff agreement.

+1

Any agreement will be more or less a useless kick the can paper weight. It will only serve to delay the inevitible. We don't have any leadership in Washington, nor do we have any intelligent, competent people. Who do you think is genuinely smart enough to understand the problems at hand? Nancy Pelosi? Harry Reid? Mitch McConnel? All morons, surrounded by more morons. Who do you think is willing to not only propose the cuts and policy changes we need from top to bottom, which will require biting the political bullet, and forcing the necessary hardship on the american people, that a true fix demands? Obama, Reid, McConnell, Boehner, etc? Not only are these people incompetent, politically driven, and incapable of compromise, they all lack the leadership traits that real changes require. Do you honestly think defense spending will be cut 20-40%? Illegals deported and the border sealed? A comprehensive energy and tax policy put in place? Entitlements slashed to sustainable levels? Corporate and social welfare either eliminated, or moderated to need basis? We all know the answer to that.

The fake "deadline" will pass, and in the 11th hour an agreement not worth the toilet paper I wipe my arse with after a trip to the throne, will be celebrated as "historic" and "economy saving", only to be later disected for the fraud that it is. Kinda like government data that is initially reported, and later "revised" to soften their real meaning. A meaning that even when revised, never tells the true story. We spend $1 trillion plus more than we take in. That my friends, is unsustainable by any measure. The spending side has to come down, and it has to come down drastically. There isn't any "revenue" option that can make up that $1 trillion on a consistent, year over year basis.

The Brandon Five · 12-06-2012, 11:59 AM

Mark Steyn: America not paying its fair share | percent, government, spending - Opinion - The Orange County Register

Quote:

Mark Steyn: America not paying its fair share

You cannot simultaneously enjoy American-sized taxes and European-sized government. One or the other has got to go.

....
Generally speaking, functioning societies make good-faith efforts to raise what they spend, subject to fluctuations in economic fortune: Government spending in Australia is 33.1 percent of GDP, and tax revenues are 27.1 percent. Likewise, government spending in Norway is 46.4 percent, and revenues are 41 percent – a shortfall but in the ballpark. Government spending in the United States is 42.2 percent, but revenues are 24 percent – the widest spending/taxing gulf in any major economy.
...
After all, as Warren Buffett pointed out in The New York Times this week, the Forbes 400 richest Americans have a combined wealth of $1.7 trillion. That sounds like a lot, and once upon a time it was. But today, if you confiscated every penny the Forbes 400 have, it would be enough to cover just over one year's federal deficit. And after that you're back to square one. It's not that "the rich" aren't paying their "fair share," it's that America isn't. A majority of the electorate has voted itself a size of government it's not willing to pay for.

JackBauer · 12-06-2012, 12:02 PM

That's a terrifically specious argument from Mark Steyn. I also heard, and this is big news, that we won't be able to mitigate our fiscal gap by defunding PBS. Le sad.

The Brandon Five · 12-06-2012, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackBauer

That's a terrifically specious argument from Mark Steyn. I also heard, and this is big news, that we won't be able to mitigate our fiscal gap by defunding PBS. Le sad.

How is it specious?

Give us your plan with numbers.

JackBauer · 12-06-2012, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Brandon Five

How is it specious?

Give us your plan with numbers.

Don't think anyone is talking about confiscatory taxation nor closing the gap solely by taxing the wealthy.

That and the fact the entire article is framed as an either/or, which is also specious reasoning.

Real World · 12-06-2012, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Brandon Five

How is it specious?

Give us your plan with numbers.

He has no plan, and doesn't understand numbers.

PatsFanInVa · 12-06-2012, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Brandon Five

How is it specious?

Give us your plan with numbers.

It an incredibly oft-repeated idiot's chant. Go ahead and google "even if you confiscated" and see what you get. They even use the same no-doubt Luntz-inspired word every time they do this.

Here's the formula:

"Even if you confiscated 100% of" [name very small set of very wealthy people,] "it wouldn't solve" [gargantuan economic problem.]

Know what? Just give the country half of that and it would be a mammoth step toward fixing everything. But of course we can't inconvenience the rich that much.

So, we'll just hit 'em for 4.5% more marginal tax. Ta-daaaa. They'll pay for some of the solution. Other progress will come from cuts. We took 230 years to run up this debt. News flash: we don't have to pay it off in one day.

As to balancing the budget as a first step: OH NOES, we'll still likely have a deficit. Why? We're still supporting the economy.

Oh let's just stop doing that!

Um, that's pretty much what the fiscal cliff is. You jumpin'?

Fact is, you don't withdraw gubmit money during a recession. Recession might be over on paper, but we're not out of the woods. We'd be closer if pubbie state houses weren't working overtime to artificially pump up our unemployment rate by firing their essential personnel.

Bet they'll come begging to Washington later when they realize what a shambles they've made of things. Typical pubbie state-level move.

PFnV

***IcyPatriot*** · 12-06-2012, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa

Let's take two scenarios Icy:

Scenario 1: You destroy growth and plunge America in the double-dip recession. Everybody has less, can make less, and is taxed more. All services simultaneously are deeply slashed.

Scenario 2: Growth continues, and has the chance to pick up markedly once the cliff is "past."

Scenario 1 might get us to a more manageable debt-to-GDP profile, but given its predictably effect on growth, it probably will have the opposite effect. However, the absolute number representing the debt will rise less quickly.

Scenarios 2 will get us to a more manageable debt-to-GDP profile. The absolute number representing the debt will rise more quickly, but the debt-to-GDP ratio will decline. Growth will increase, relative to scenario 1.

Do you want your bumper sticker ("I reduced the debt and all I got was this lousy bumper sticker,") or do you want a better economy, and a better debt number that matters -- that is, debt relative to the economy (as opposed to in a vacuum)?

PR, it actually sounds like you are getting this at the moment. Explain to Icy will ya?

PFnV

Only in some fantasy would my USA government raise more revenue and actually spend less.

has my USA government actually ever done this before in my lifetime?

If the government actually has ever understood this notion why have they never done it on their own without pressure?

while pondering the above also let me know if - where - and when Obama has uttered the words he is going to squeeze for savings from every area of the budget including eliminating fraud and wasteful spending in the welfare section of the budget. I hear people threaten Medicare and seniors which is horrible ... how about all the fraud in the welfare sector ... and there is tons and tons of it.

Is it harder the same or easier to get government assistance since George Bush became President 12 years ago. Has the government looked for any ways to save money in this area or have they increased handouts without question?

Between war and welfare we are drowning.

PatsFanInVa · 12-06-2012, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IcyPatriot

Only in some fantasy would my USA government raise more revenue and actually spend less.

has my USA government actually ever done this before in my lifetime?

If the government actually has ever understood this notion why have they never done it on their own without pressure?

while pondering the above also let me know if - where - and when Obama has uttered the words he is going to squeeze for savings from every area of the budget including eliminating fraud and wasteful spending in the welfare section of the budget. I hear people threaten Medicare and seniors which is horrible ... how about all the fraud in the welfare sector ... and there is tons and tons of it.

Is it harder the same or easier to get government assistance since George Bush became President 12 years ago. Has the government looked for any ways to save money in this area or have they increased handouts without question?

Between war and welfare we are drowning.

Dig deeper, Icy my friend. Look for Heritage's definition of "welfare." Come back and let me know what programs they are assigning as trillion-dollar-a-year welfare expenditures.

Let me know what you find.

PFnV

alvinnf · 12-06-2012, 08:52 PM

DC is a gigantic bloated, money hungry machine. It must be stopped! We need to bring back liberty and American values. New American values that include those considered the fringe of 20 yrs ago.