Welcome to PatsFans.com

Idea to Reduce the Federal Deficit

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatriotsReign, Nov 15, 2010.

  1. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,620
    Likes Received:
    73
    Ratings:
    +149 / 1 / -9

    LEGALIZE MARIJUANA!!

    Yup, that's right child...:rocker:

    Sell pot LEGALLY and tax it. Projected revenue is in the stratosphere.

    This would also eliminate thousand of jobs for federal agents trying to catch pot smugglers and greatly reduce the number of people imprisoned for marijuana distribution. The number of jobs lost woud be more than off-set by the number of people that would gain employment by making pot legal.

    The bottom-line is that we've had ample time to consider all the reasons why pot should or should not be legal. And to date, I haven't read a single convincing argument on why it should NOT be legalized.

    Has anyone?

    I think we can all agree that pot is NOT, "the gateway drug to heavier more harmful drugs" any more so than alcohol.
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2010
  2. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,815
    Likes Received:
    93
    Ratings:
    +145 / 2 / -1

    Nope. Not one.
  3. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    That makes too much sense....

    here is a better Idea:

    Cut Taxes
    Cut Spending
    Increase the military budget
    Outsource jobs
    Deregulate Wall Street
    redistribute wealth to the richest 1% of americans
    cut Social Security
    cut Medicare

    everything should be great after that.
  4. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,620
    Likes Received:
    73
    Ratings:
    +149 / 1 / -9

    You're right HD...why do something that actually makes sense from all angles?

    sarcasm noted.
  5. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    As we all know, nothing will change, wealth will be redistributed to the wealthiest people. Our debt will grow, our dollar will be inflated and worthless, our jobs will go overseas, our depression will worsen, our children will be undereducated...

    and we will vote in fear, against our own interests to put these people who are breaking our country and profiting from it, back in power!


    we suck.
  6. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,620
    Likes Received:
    73
    Ratings:
    +149 / 1 / -9

    I actually agree with this except the "we suck" part.

    ONe of the biggest factors tearing our country apart is our growing population. Over time, as our population has grown and our citizens feel less and less significant, we've gotten cynical and scared.

    After all, who are we to blame? Who can truly manage something as big as our federal gov't? The honest answer is "no one can"...at least not effectively and honestly.

    And the more our population grows, the worse it will get. Sometimes I wonder if all would be better if each state managed their own gov't from top to bottom and we eliminated the federal gov't except for the the absolute neccessities.
  7. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

  8. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Disband the TSA.

    You have a greater chance of dying on the way to the airport than once you get on a plan and die in a terrorist act.

    The money spent is not worth the effectiveness of the TSA, they are always behind the plots, and and reactionary. In a terrorist attack world... reacting to an attack means the attempt was already made...
  9. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com

    Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget


    great example of the hard decisions w ecollectivly have to make as a country during the next 2 years.


    wanna bet none of these gets cut?


    I balanced the budget, as I'm sure most people can, when given dictorial powers. Its the coming together that will be impossible.
  10. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Without addressing the great pot debate, the solution to the problem of our Federal Debt or annual deficit will take drastic measures, such as a balanced budget amendment or a dramatic reduction in spending. Don't be fooled into thinking that to solve the debt, all we need to do is generate more revenue. The pols have proven time and again that no matter how much revenue is generated, they will find a way to spend it all and then some.

    IOW, suppose our deficit for next year is $500 billion. Logically, one thinks that if we can somehow generate an additional $500 billion in revenue, then that will balance the budget. But it won't. The pols will find a way to waste that additional revenue and still spend the same amount in debt.
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2010
  11. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    We all did this. HD's right. We suck. Every American deserves some of the blame along with the politicians and corporations who have been digging this hole because we let this happen when we were happy, fat, and too stupid and lazy to give a damn.
  12. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,006
    Likes Received:
    180
    Ratings:
    +285 / 5 / -8

    The budget-balancing link should be part of every high school curriculum if you ax me.

    Curious, PR, did you try this exercise? How about you, WP?

    I done balanced the budget with a mix of cuts and taxes, as did HD.

    Can you guys do it with no new taxes?

    PFnV
  13. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,620
    Likes Received:
    73
    Ratings:
    +149 / 1 / -9

    Yes we can!:D
  14. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Interesting puzzle. You have to do it a couple of times unless you're an extremist.
    I went heavy for all military cuts
    Foreign aid
    farm subsidies
    Other govt cuts
    early troop reduction (complete withdrawal from all foreign activities would be great, but wasn't option)
    Cap medicare growth
    Tighten SSI eligibility

    After all that I was still short. I refused to raise the age of SS or cut the benefits. Those are bills owed and they should be honored. We could cut the retirement age in the future and tell a 20 year-old that they have to wait until they're 85, but no way should you tell a 45 year-old who has been paying into the system for 25 years that the agreement has to change in mid-stream.

    So in the end, I threw on a national sales tax and still came up short. I picked that one with the hopes that it may eventually phase out the IRS, reduce waste headed for landfills, and encourage savings, which would then reduce the revenues and we'd be coming up short again.

    There are so much more things that could be cut that the NYT didn't offer, like corporate welfare and tax loopholes. Very oversimplistic model for the mess that is the US budget.
  15. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,620
    Likes Received:
    73
    Ratings:
    +149 / 1 / -9

    I'd love to see a flat tax policy where EVERYONE has to pay taxes no matter what. As long as you have an income. And no one who has no income should ever get a refund. Especially if you're already on the dole for state assistance because those people are double-dipping.

    Let's make SURE every one of our wealthiest citizens pays at least as much (as in percent of income) as the highest middle-class earners. Also, I'd like to see an end to people being able to call themselves corporations. I heard a comedian state that he's now a corporation and so he doesn't have to pay any taxes...that must end.
  16. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,620
    Likes Received:
    73
    Ratings:
    +149 / 1 / -9

    I had no problem solving the deficit...72% of my plan came from spending cuts and the other 28% through tax increases. I did not increase any taxes upon the middle class.

    One stupid proposal I noticed was to limit soc sec benefits to the highest 40% of earners. You can't base any limits upon what people "made" in their lifetime if they haven't saved anything from it. ALL limits should be based purely upon total assets upon retirement...any other way would be idiotic.
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2010
  17. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Total assets?
    What about the trust fund brat who never earned a wage and made a killing on the stock market without ever paying a penny into SS?

    Not sure I understand your meaning in your post...:confused:
  18. The Brandon Five

    The Brandon Five Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,238
    Likes Received:
    39
    Ratings:
    +87 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    Unfortunately, history shows that the amount of revenues raised as a % of GDP is pretty consistently around 18%, regardless of rates:

    [​IMG]


    Does hiking tax rates raise more revenue? - Fundmastery Blog - MarketWatch

    Given that, the focus should be on how to maximize GDP. A pro-growth tax policy and reduced Federal spending is what we need to reduce or eliminate the deficit. I favor consumption taxes over taxing income and investment. That allows us to capture revenues from the "underground economy" as well as encourage growth (i.e. encourages investment and capital formation).
  19. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,006
    Likes Received:
    180
    Ratings:
    +285 / 5 / -8

    Here's their blurb on that particular proposal:

    So basically what they are doing is one of the proposals that falls above this one, that is, only paying COLAs based on inflation, not COLAs based on wage growth, which tends to be higher.

    HOWEVER, they exempt those people who have earned less Social Security retirement income from this provision.

    So, if your social security check is $1000 per month, and mine is $2000 per month, your COLA might be 3% (for example,) for a total of $1030 a month. Mine would be 2.5% (for example,) for a total of $2050 a month.

    Note the overall effect of the COLA scenario on the high earner: although his "raise" is less per month as a percentage of the benefit he's earned, the gap is still widening in this scenario.

    The gap widens more if both beneficiaries get the same rate of increase.

    You could probably get back a ton of savings if you just say Social Security will pay everybody a COLA of 10% of the benefit of the lowest wage-earner who worked full time (i.e., a high-three average at minimum wage, for a 30-year career.)

    That would give minimum wage earners a 10% raise every year when they become minimal-benefit collectors, and people whose benefits were twice that a 5% raise, etc. It would decline with the size of your benefit, with the highest earners getting the same size "raise" every year as the lowest earner - just a different percent raise. (This is the reducto ad absurdum of the same idea... and actually it doesn't look that absurd.)

    Viewed this way, approaching the COLAs differently is just a way of addressing the redistribution of the wealth toward those who already have more - what else do you call a $20 a month annual raise for the bottom and a $200 a month raise for the top?

    These are raises, not your initial payout. That makes the proposal pretty palateable, if you ask me.

    PFnV
  20. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,620
    Likes Received:
    73
    Ratings:
    +149 / 1 / -9

    NOt to me at all PFinVA...it sounds ridiculous because everyone financial circumstance is different.

    I didn't become a high-earner until about 5 years ago. I was making under $50K up until 2001. But for the past few years have been fortunate enough to be able to earn more than twice that amount...still not close to "wealthy".

    Our system is horrible when it comes to single earning households. We have the "HCE Rule" regarding 401k's which states that if you make over $105K, you can only contribute 2% more than the average of your company's average contribution per employee. That means I can only contribute 6% annually to my 401K because my company's average is just 4%.

    Now, can you tell me what good it does to limit my contributions?

    Can you tell me how limitting my contributions helps those who can't afford to contribute more than 4%?

    And if I'm contributing more toward soc sec than the bottom 40%, but I end up retiring with the same assets as they do, why limit my COLA? Keeping in mind that $100K in Massachusetts is probably equivelant to earning $40K in Missippi or several other states? In other words, actual "Cost of Living" should be considered when determining COLA's...makes sense to me anyway.

    One last note is that single people should not be penalized by anything in our system...but we are, I can assure you. I don't think anything in our tax code should encourage people to get married or have children. Especially since each option is a CHOICE one makes...just my opinion.
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2010

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>