|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 28, 2013 10:23:33 GMT
BTW I was reading an article that got me to thinking about how the rift between the Tea Party Republicans and traditional Republicans could result in Republicans losing control of the House. As the article noted there are Congressional districts where a Tea Party Republican could oust an established House Republican in the Republican primaries. There is also a chance that "ousted" incumbent could choose to run as an independent if they lose in the primary with the hopes that traditional Republicans, Independents, and even a small number of Democrats will elect them over a "Tea Party" Republican that Independents and Democrats wouldn't logically support. In a three-way race the "Tea Party" candidate isn't likely to win because they're too extreme for most Americans. The problem is that the incumbent running as an Independent may not win either and that would hand the seat over to the Democrats.
It would all relate to how much support the incumbent had from the traditional Republicans that would be a minority in the primary (or didn't vote in the primary) and how much independent and even possible Democratic support they might have. The "Tea Party" Republican can logically only win if all of the Republicans vote for them in a Republican controlled district because most Independents and all Democrats oppose the Tea Party agenda. A three-way race changes the dynamics of the election.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 28, 2013 21:10:57 GMT
You're claiming that Independents are against fiscal responsibility, lower the national debt, and turning the country around from it's over spending? Where's your proof that 'most' Independents are against these things?
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 30, 2013 11:16:43 GMT
You're claiming that Independents are against fiscal responsibility, lower the national debt, and turning the country around from it's over spending? Where's your proof that 'most' Independents are against these things?
For example most Americans believe that the hunger in American that, because of low incomes, can't afford to feed their families need to be fed. Cutting SNAP benefits is highly unpopular among independents and Democrats. Remember that the spending on SNAP today wasn't caused by raising the criteria for those benefits but instead because more people were plunged into poverty after the economic collapse in 2008.
I would also state that most Americans oppose cutting Social Security benefits. They're already extremely low only averaging about $15,000/yr and as low as $7.000/yr. Virtually everyone in the bottom 50% of Social Security retirement recipients is also receiving additional welfare because they qualify for it. Cutting Social Security benefits even further by changing the COLA formula that is completely unrelated to the cost of living for retirees is going to drive more SS retirees into needing additional welfare assistance. It's a zero gain proposal because people still need the same amount of "money" to live on. It's not rational to cut one program so that people need another program just to stay above water economically. A bad Republican (Tea Party) proposal because it accomplishes nothing unless we're basically willing to allow Americans to starve.
We need a balanced and pragmatic approach to addressing the deficits. We can't cut programs that people need just to survive but that's what the Tea Party proposes with their targeted spending cuts. We need to increase revenue without "harming" the middle class American and the poor that can't afford more taxation. The "Tea Party" opposes any tax code changes even when they address gross inequities in our tax codes or if they result in additional federal revenues that are required to balance the budget.
The problem isn't with the "goals" but instead it's with the Tea Party's proposals targeting of the poor people in American and refusing to address tax code revisions that result in increased revenue required to balance the budget. We can't "balance the budget on the backs of the poorest Americans" but that's what the Tea Party's proposals attempt to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 30, 2013 16:47:11 GMT
In the minds of Democrats....and obviously some of the Libertarian supporters...there should be no end to spending. No end to taking more and more money from the American people to give away to someone else. Right now....the Food Stamp program is about to go over the fiscal cliff and there are more people on it than ever before...and it is ripe with abuse......but people like YOU want taxpayers to fork over more and more for it. In January of this year, the Republicans just gave the president a huge tax hike....to the tune of $600 BILLION over the next 10 years. Most of it coming from what he calls "the rich," but a lot of it coming from the Middle class as well. You continue to claim the Republicans never give the president anything. At the time, Obama promised tax cuts later....but as of this date has not offered any. He certainly didn't do so during the debt ceiling hike debate....which should have been his opportunity. So, in other words, he promises, but never does it. He gets what he wants, but doesn't come through with his end of the deal to really actually FIX the over-spending problem. We cannot fix the debt by continuing to only raise taxes and never actually cutting expenditures. Continuing to raise taxes simply equates to more and more spending. Doing what the Democrats always want to do never actually fixes the problem; only makes it worse.
The only Democrat president who ever cut spending was Bill Clinton....after he got a whipping when the Republicans came in with their "contract for America" where they came in on the PROMISE they'd lower spending. Clinton was a realist; Obama would never do that....no matter how badly he got beat. If that happened to him, he'd simply continue to act like a Dictator using E.O.'s and usurping the Congress' authority......which is already does anyway. I don't see our over-spending problem EVER getting addressed while he's president. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 30, 2013 19:00:48 GMT
I can't speak for any Democrats and can't speak on behalf of Libertarians overall but I'm the only one I'm aware of that has made a proposal that would pragmatically balance the US budget in it's first year of implementation and that is based upon principles that have been peer reviewed by other libertarians and that they support. It also pragmatically eliminates about 1/3rd of the US government over time and a corresponding reduction in taxation when that is accomplished.
My proposal has also been reviewed by "social conservatives" and "progressive liberals" and they have been unable to argue any real flaws in the proposal because it really is fair for all Americans and doesn't adversely affect the standard of living of a single American. In fact several issues addressed in my proposal were based upon legitimate arguments by "social conservatives" and "progressive liberals" because the support of both is required.
Name ANY Republican plan or Democratic plan that accomplishes this. I've found none and no one has proposed a plan that accomplishes what my plan accomplishes. For the 2012 Budget Year Paul Ryan and the Republican controlled House Budget Committee make a proposal in law that never resulted in a balanced budget and was based upon mythological financial assumptions that were as bad as the financial assumptions used to support "Obamacare" by the Democrats.
It's one thing to walk around calling for a balanced budget and its a completely different manner to address the problem of a balanced budget in a non-partisan manner that Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians can't argue against and that deserves the support of all three of these political ideologies.
Everyone is invited to address my proposals on both federal taxation that would balance the US budget immediately and state taxation that addresses the regressive nature of most state taxes on the threads I've created. I've invited people to do that because, A) they can present a legitimate objection that needs to be addressed, or B) they can't support their opinion as actually being legitimate.
It's an open challenge but there is no denying that it would eliminate unfair taxation, balance the budget immediately, and reduce the size of government by about 1/3rd over time eliminating the taxation required for that 1/3rd of government. It's a "win-win-win-win" proposition providing really a tri-partisan (Republican, Democratic, and Libertarian) solution that I've found no legitimate reasons to oppose. Every legitimate concern has, to my knowledge, been addressed.
,,,,and the Tea Party has offered what to balance the budget? Cut benefits necessary for the poor while cutting taxation even more that never results in a balanced budget? Not much of a proposal IMHO.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 30, 2013 19:28:07 GMT
You obviously didn't look very hard. Republicans have offered budgets. I think we can all agree we have a spending problem; not a "revenue/need more tax money" problem. And it's Republicans who are the only ones willing to address the actual over-spending problem. In reverse of that....Dems only want to keep spending while continue to increase taxes on the citizens. And don't forget, in January of this year......Republicans agreed to raising taxes already.....to the tune of $600 Billion over a 10-yr period. That increase hits mostly the "rich" but some of the middle class as well.....as tax increases always do. Since Republicans gave on that......Obama and the Dems have not given ANY cuts in return. It is THEIR turn. You can also see that comparing the budgets.....Ryan's is the only one of the two that actually decreases our problem of spending....and balances the budget in 10 years. Murray's not only does NOT balance the budget, it actually increases spending, while raising taxes. It's what Dems always do.
Their competing ideologies are best seen in their fiscal 2014 budgets issued early this year.
Ryan: He proposes balancing the federal budget in 10 years with spending cuts and lower interest costs that would amount to $5.74 trillion in savings. He would leave sequestration intact. He also would get there with no tax increases and large cuts to entitlement programs. Most of his proposed savings would come from about $4 trillion in entitlement cuts over 10 years.
Murray: Her budget would leave the budget unbalanced after 10 years and not by a little. She would achieve $1.78 trillion in savings over that period. She would end sequestration, adding nearly $1 trillion in spending over a decade. Much of that spending would be for investments in education, which is close to the heart of the onetime preschool teacher. In one of the biggest differences with Ryan, her proposed budget includes $810 billion in new revenues from higher taxes and fees.
wesa.fm/post/tale-tape-comparing-budget-committee-chairs
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 31, 2013 13:20:16 GMT
No spending cuts under President Obama at all, eh? Is that the claim? Do we need a lot of examples or will one prove that this is a Tea Party lie?
Tomorrow, Friday Nov 1st, there is a $5 billion cut to the SNAP program. It doesn't remove anyone from the SNAP roles but does represent an average reduction of about $36 per month for those enrolled. True, it's only $5 billion our of over $2 trillion in authorized general expenditures but it does represent over a 6% cut in spending for just one program. Republicans want to "double-down" on an existing spending cut that would literally remove poor Americans from the SNAP rolls as opposed to just reducing their benefits that's going to happen tomorrow.
news.yahoo.com/congress-begins-talks-food-stamps-farm-aid-212546598--finance.html
But that's not the "fun" part of this story. The fun part is that this spending reduction is the result of the expiration of a spending authorization in 2009. The benefits are ending because the law that provided them is going to expire tomorrow. The "Tea Party" can say, "That's not a real spending cut" and they would be correct IMO. It's merely the expiration of a temporary spending authorization.
The expiration of a temporary spending authorization isn't really "cutting spending" by any scope of the imagination.
On the opposite side of the equation the expiration of a temporary tax reduction isn't a tax increase either. The reduction in the Capital Gains rates from the Bush Administration were a temporary tax reduction and the expiration of that temporary tax reduction does not represent an increase in taxes. In fact in addressing the revision to the Capital Gains tax rates when the previous 20% top rate was re-imposed, that would have happened with no legislative action, it actually reflected a tax cut because the income level for that 20% rate was increased and not decreased that would have represented a tax increase.
The $600 billion over ten years wasn't actually a tax increase because taxes would have been higher without that legislation. It was really a tax cut because simply allowing the temporary Bush Capital Gains tax rates to expire would have resulted in more tax revenue by reinstating the previous tax rate structure. That previous tax rate structure was "cut" and that is a tax cut not a tax increase.
The Republican controlled House has submitted budget proposals to the Senate but not a single one was a result of a bipartisan compromise in the House and none had any chance of acceptance by the Senate. Simply submitting a budget proposal isn't enough. It must be a viable budget proposal and those are created by bipartisan compromise.
For example the 2012 budget year created by the House Budget Committee under Rep Paul Ryan was an absurd piece of legislation that no one in their right mind would entertain as being a viable budget for the United States. It also had roughly the same budget deficits as the White House proposal so it didn't even make any serious attempt at reducing the deficits and, according to the CBO, wouldn't have balanced the US budget going out to at least 2042 under even the most optimistic of the budget assumptions being made by Ryan.
Deficit spending and the increase in the national debt is fundamentally unchanged regardless of whether we look at Republican or Democratic proposals.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 31, 2013 16:34:16 GMT
While not specific to Senator Ted Cruz let's look at what Rep Paul Ryan's budget proposal is for 2014 piece by piece (until I get bored doing this).
Opening statement:
Well, Washington may "owe" us a balanced budget but the House Budget does not balance the budget in 2014. Only by using mythical assumptions that never come true, just like Democrats used in passing Obamacare, would we ever reach a balanced budget. Sorry but voodoo economics do not create a balanced budget but let's go on because this also states that "Washington" must propose a "responsible" budget even if it's not balanced.
What has the "Republican" position been on Medicaid?
"Provide states flexibility on Medicaid" sounds good but House Republicans don't do that.
"Repeal the health-care law's expansion of Medicaid" that funded the states expansion of Medicaid so that the states could actually provide health care services for America's poor that can't afford health care services.
"Repeal the health-care law's exchange subsidies" where individuals and families that couldn't fully afford health insurance would be partially subsidized so they could have insurance. This would force them to depend on Medicaid for the medical services they require that Republicans oppose expanding to provide them with health care.
Medicaid doesn't have a spending problem, it has a funding problem because tens of millions of Americans can't afford the health care they need and can't afford the full cost of insurance. Is allowing tens of millions of people to go without necessary medical services where tens of thousands of them die really "Responsible" government? I would say not.
***********************
What do Republicans propose related to SNAP?
"Allow states to customize SNAP to address the needs unique to their citizens" but that only works if the government is willing to fund the program. SNAP benefits are being reduced by $5 billion tomorrow. Additionally Republicans are proposing another $4 billion in additional spending cuts. That's over 11% in spending authorizations for SNAP while Americans are still suffering severely from the 2008 economic collapse. Real income for average "white" Americans dropped by over 7% and over 12% for "black" American between 2009 and 2011 alone driving millions of marginal income Americans into poverty.
At a time when more Americans than ever require SNAP food assistance the Republicans are proposing a combined reduction in benefits by over $9 billion or by over 11%. Is literally taking food off the table of Americas poorest families "Responsible" government? I would say not.
"Address barriers to upward mobility" is a laugh as Republicans have proposed nothing to address this and are fundamentally opposed to addressing it. Upward mobility has all but vanished in America today. Since about 2001 the "real income" of Americans has been declining and not increasing.
That "anenic 0.4%" increase in income didn't even keep up with inflation as real wages for Americans continue to decline while the wealthiest Americans enjoyed a 31.4% increase in income. When are Republicans going to acknowledge that the lower a person's income the higher tax burden relative to income becomes. A self-employed "middle income" person with a $70,000/year net income is in a 15% income tax bracket and pays 15.3% in Self-Employment taxes while an investor that doesn't need to go to work even one day during the year with the identical net income of $70,000 has a total tax liability of 0% and Republicans call that "fair" but I don't. Congress can do something about increasing "upward mobility" by eliminating unfair taxes where the wealthiest Americans, the top ten of which have over $300 billion in personal assets alone, have at least the same tax burden relative to income that a minimum wage earner has in America.
Republicans also need to acknowledge that individual prejudice, that the government cannot control which results in economic discrimination denying equality of opportunity to ten of millions of Americans. This discrimination, generally based upon race, ethnic heritage, and gender, denies upward mobility. While this discrimination is not limited to any political ideology it must be noted that it is significantly greatest within the Republican ideology. Its a problem that the government can't fix but Republicans need to address the simple fact that 8 out of 10 Republicans express explicit anti-black racial prejudice that can result in economic discrimination that prevents upward mobility.
"Reinstitute welfare’s work requirements" is really rather ignorant because the vast majority of those collecting SNAP benefits are working Americans and those that aren't working would like to be but can't for numerous reasons. Republicans continue to believe that being unemployed is a choice when overwhelmingly it's not. Many times it's just pragmatically impossible. Accepting a minimum wage job can actually result in negative income after the costs of child care are paid for in thousands of cases. It also ignores the long term unemployed that have been looking for a job sometimes for years but there are no jobs for them.
Of course the simple propositions of "Allowing the states to customize SNAP" and imposing the federal mandate of "Reinstate welfare's work requirements" are often mutually excusive. Remember how Republicans whined and complained when President Obama allowed waivers to states that submitted "back to work proposals" that differed from the federal mandates for welfare. The States had a "better idea" and the Republicans opposed allowing them to implement it because it required a waiver to federal mandates even though those waivers were authorized by the law.
Is simply making BS statements about "improving upward mobility" when Republicans are opposed to actually doing that and making claims about empowering the state but also imposing federal mandates that take away that empowerment while actually cutting the assistance to Americans that really need the assistance by over 11% "Responsible" government? I would say not.
*****************************
Last but not least I'll address one final issue based upon the Republican House budget proposal which is Social Security and Medicare.
With this statement in mind let's look at what Republicans propose.
I will quickly review this but will point out a fact that the Republicans make in their opening statement and that these programs are a "social contract" made between our government and every person that has contributed even one dime in FICA/Payroll/Self-employment taxes and that social contract has already been violated by Congress.
Not only was it a "social contract" but in some cases, such as my own, it was a written contract. On the back of my Social Security card it expressly states that I would be able to collect full Social Security benefits at age 65 but Congress changed that to age 66 which was a violation of a written contract.
"Reform Medicare for younger generations" assuming they've been already paying taxes into Medicare is a violation of the Social Contract if benefits are reduced. "Repeal the health-care rationing board" when no such "board" exists is nothing but partisan BS. "Reform the medical-liability system" is "political-speak" for cutting jury awarded compensation to the victims of medical malpractice -and is an attack on the victims of malpractice that has insignificant financial benefit. How about reducing malpractice instead? "End the raid on the Medicare Trust Fund" is really absurd. Funds collected as excess taxation to ensure that Medicare benefits were not reduced where borrowed by the Reagan, George GW Bush, Clinton, and George W Bush administrations pay for general expenditures that should have been paid for with general tax revenues (predominately income taxes). It was really borrowed to allow low taxation on "Capital Gain" for the top 1% of income earners. "Means-test premiums for high-income seniors" is probably the only legitimate proposal being made related to Medicare that actually requires more funding because it's not paying the full costs of the medical services now.
I'd also state that the health care benefits paid for by the "Advantage" insurance need to be replaced by federal funding because most retirees can't afford this additional expense because of the very low average Social Security benefit. I can only go by what my parents pay for their "Advantage" insurance which is $3,600/year each and if we deduct that from the average $15,000/yr Social Security benefit that only leaves a person with $11,400 to live on.
As for the proposals specifically related to funding Social Security that would "Require the President to submit a plan to shore up the Social Security Trust Fund" and "Require Congress to submit a plan of its own" there isn't anything specifically wrong with this so long as the "Social Contract" isn't violated but the Social Contract is being violated. Retirement ages are being raised even though the physical and mental ability to work longer is a physical limitation of the human body that has not changed by people living longer. Retirement ages need to be based upon when a person becomes too old to work physically and/or mentally and not based upon how long they live after they're physically incapable of working. I'm 64 years old for example and I'd be physically incapable of working in construction today.
But funding Social Security needs to be address and the continued breaking of the Social Contract between the US Government and the American People needs to stop and be reversed if possible.
I do believe that Democrats have proposed about a 1.6% increase in both FICA and Payroll taxes (and a corresponding 3.2% increase in the Self-Employment tax). It would provide the additional necessary funding but I oppose it because the FICA/Payroll/Self-Employment taxes are highly regressive and the bottom 90% of Americans can't afford more regressive taxation. As noted the Republicans in the House haven't propose anything really except to violated the Social Contract so far.
My proposal is the simply lift all caps and impose the FICA/Payroll/Self-Employment tax on all income regardless of the source of that income. Of course I'd do that as a part of a "privatization" plan that doesn't violated the "Social Contract" because it is based upon the first day of work for a person where the "Social Contact" does not yet exist. It would created a new "Social Contract" for those entering the work force and not violate the "Social Contract" for those already in the workforce.
Bottom line Medicare and Social Security don't have a spending problem but instead have a funding problem.
Long post, sorry about that, but the fact is that Tea Party Republicans and Republicans in general are NOT addressing a balanced budget in a RESPONIBLE MANNER when we review what they proposes. The belief that the US government only has a spending problem and not a funding problem is false. Generally speaking when we address welfare programs, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security it's a funding and not a spending problem.
That isn't to say we don't have spending problem though. We do. We spend at least four-times as much on "national defense" that is required to defend the nation from invasion or attack. We spend over twice as much on federal law enforcement because of "social engineering" in our drug prohibition laws. We spend over twice as much on border patrol to prevent immigration that is unrelated to nefarious criminal intent for people that come here just to work based upon a US demand for their labor.
Responsible Government means cutting spending on "unnecessary expenditures" while funding "necessary expenditures" but Republican want to cut necessary expenditures and fund unnecessary expenditures.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 31, 2013 17:00:29 GMT
Once again sorry for my prior long post but I felt compelled to address the House Budget by actually addressing items in it because it's an Irresponsible Budget. My last statement really sums up the entire post for the simple-minded.
Responsible Government means cutting spending on "unnecessary expenditures" while funding "necessary expenditures" but Republican want to cut necessary expenditures and fund unnecessary expenditures.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 31, 2013 17:18:59 GMT
The Democrats and Obama could have agreed to extend or make permanent those tax cuts. That's what Republicans wanted; Democrats did not. therefore the FACT that income taxes went up to the tune of $600 Billion over the next 10 years is clearly on the heads of the Democrats. It was their doings; their decision. And that's not all the tax "revenue" (aka "hikes") they got either:
"Overspending because of the explosion of entitlement spending is the driver of unsustainable debt and deficits going forward. Washington is not suffering from a lack of revenue. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that revenue will meet and soon surpass its historical average of 18 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).[1] Spending, also according to the CBO, is already above its historical average of 20 percent of GDP and will keep rising to record levels if left unchecked.
Part of the reason tax revenue will rise above its historical average is recent tax increases. President Obama has already raised taxes substantially twice—first as part of Obamacare and then as part of the “fiscal cliff” deal earlier this year. Together, those increases raised taxes by more than $1.3 trillion over 10 years.[2] Including the payroll tax increase that was also part of the fiscal cliff deal, taxes have risen by almost $3 trillion during President Obama’s tenure.[3]
Raising taxes yet again in the conference would not fix the problem of overspending, is unnecessary, and would further burden an already sluggish economy. The budget conference should not fall prey to the distraction of unnecessarily raising taxes—whether through using tax reform wrongly or misguidedly “closing loopholes”—and should instead focus solely on reducing spending by reforming entitlement programs to make them more affordable and more effective."
Of course, we know the Democrats won't agree that any entitlement should be cut at all; ever. There's only one way entitlements should go, in their opinion....and that is UP. Because after all, they believe they are entitled. And the more money they are given; the more ways they will find to spend it. And that is all the more reason to do everything in our power to keep more and more money from getting into the hands of the federal gov't. The federal gov't has gotten way too far away from its initial responsibilities since the beginning of our country.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 31, 2013 17:36:22 GMT
Once again sorry for my prior long post but I felt compelled to address the House Budget by actually addressing items in it because it's an Irresponsible Budget. My last statement really sums up the entire post for the simple-minded.
Responsible Government means cutting spending on "unnecessary expenditures" while funding "necessary expenditures" but Republican want to cut necessary expenditures and fund unnecessary expenditures.
Thanks to liberal policies on over spending, we now have in our country subsidies going to a family of 4 making up to $94,500/yer. That is NINETY_FOUR FIVE HUNDRED per year!!!
We now have changed the Food Stamp program to sound nicer; it's now S.N.A.P. It's also oh-so-easy to get now. Little credit cards for their convenience and so the middle-class COLLEGE STUDENTS using them won't have to be embarrassed!! After all....they can spend that $200/month that the taxpayers are GIVING them on food, while they spend the money Mommy & Daddy are sending them on Friday and Saturday night PAH---TY!!! And while a recent MUCH-NEEDED cut just went into effect on this totally abused program, there are those who STILL claim it not only should NOT be cut; but should be INCREAED!!
We now have people eligible for all kinds of federal subsidies when they make 300% and 400% ABOVE poverty level. That tells you right there; they are NOT in poverty!!! The original reason given as the need for such programs has now eroded into a "freebie" for anyone willing to "come and get it."
ABUSES....ABUSES....ABUSES. And it's time to stop that abuse....and to get back to the idea of helping those who are actually in need and not being STUPID. Come on....you wouldn't do this personally....so why DEMAND it from the rest of the nation's taxpayers? The biggest responsibility of the federal government is our defense and protection. And the federal gov't needs to stop their idea that everything in this country is THEIR business; because it is not. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 31, 2013 17:43:08 GMT
Let's not resort to changing history in making a political point.
The "Bush Era" tax cuts were temporary and lead to deficit spending under the Bush administration although Bush had promised "no deficits and reducing the national debt" in his 2001 State of the Union Address. Those temporary tax cuts should have been repealed under the Bush administration as soon as it was realized that we had to resort to deficit spending because the federal government was not collecting enough revenue to eliminate any deficits and fund debt reduction. Even many of those in the Tea Party movement condemn former President Bush for his deficit spending and increasing of the national debt.
When a temporary legislative measure fails to accomplish that which it was intended to do it should logically be allowed to expire if it's not already been repealed. That was the case with the Bush Era tax cuts. They failed to do what was promised and they should have been allowed to simply expire because they hadn't been repealed when they should have been repealed. We already knew the tax cuts were a failure by 2003 and the additional tax cuts that year made no sense whatsoever.
Allowing a temporary tax cut to expire is not a tax increase. It's merely the reinstatement of the prevailing tax that was reduced temporarily to achieve a goal. The Bush Era tax cuts failed to achieve the goal of debt reduction with lower taxation.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 31, 2013 19:18:46 GMT
Once again sorry for my prior long post but I felt compelled to address the House Budget by actually addressing items in it because it's an Irresponsible Budget. My last statement really sums up the entire post for the simple-minded.
Responsible Government means cutting spending on "unnecessary expenditures" while funding "necessary expenditures" but Republican want to cut necessary expenditures and fund unnecessary expenditures.
I'm the only person on World Politics Forum that has addressed FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY.
The FIRST RULE of FISCAL REPONSIBILITY is PAY THE BILLS!!!!
I haven't seen a single proposal by Republicans, Democrats, or even the Libertarian Party that PAYS THE BILLS except for a general statement by Gary Johnson during his 2012 presidential bid as the Libertarian Candidate that he would insist on a BALANCED BUDGET his first year in office. I don't know how he planned to do that but at least it was a campaign promise that neither Romney/Ryan or Obama/Biden was willing to make.
I've proposed a revision to the federal tax codes on this forum that balances the budget in the first year of implementation!!! That is FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY.
We might not like what the Congress has authorized spending on but that does not negate our responsibility to PAY THE BILLS. My tax proposals at both the State and Federal level of taxation (and the taxpayer is responsible for both) attempts to remove existing inequities in our current tax codes while PAYING THE BILLS. That is FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY.
I don't like Federal Welfare Assistance because the Federal Government is not responsible for the Welfare of the People under the US Constitution. The States, under the State Constitutions, are responsible for the Welfare of the People. The Welfare of the People cannot be simply ignore and the States are Constitutionally responsible for providing any financial or program assistance to meet the needs of the People that they cannot afford to met on their own. The problem is that the States are failing in their Constitutionally delegated role to Provide for the Welfare of the People. The day that all 50 States step up and fulfill their Responsibility to the People and ensure that no person goes without a roof over their heads, when no person goes hungry because they can't afford food to eat, when no person goes without quality health care when they can't afford it, and when the States fully fund their own school systems, THEN WE CAN END THESE FEDERAL PROGRAMS.
THE DAY THE STATES ASSUME THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES AS THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE THERE WILL BE NO NEED FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO THE PEOPLE.
I'm also the only person to present a fair tax plan at both the State and Federal level that attempts to balance the tax burden relative to income for all Americans. It is absurd that the lowest income individuals and families have the highest tax burden relative to income when they total state and federal tax burden is addressed. They lose at both levels when compared to higher income Americans. My tax proposals actually provide for the bottom 50% of the American workforce by dramatically reducing their tax burden which will reduce poverty dramatically over time.
I'm the only person that has provided a pragmatic plan to fundamentally end Social Security and completely eliminate Medicare. No Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian has made a proposal anywhere close to what I've proposed. I literally cut over 30% of government when "privatization" of Social Security is accomplished. Yes, it does require an "upfront" expenditure but often times an upfront cost is necessary to achieve a long term savings and that is the case here. In addressing it though I provided the funding mechanism by imposing the same expenditure on ALL Americans that has traditionally been imposed on only the workers in America. Not a single person's "standard of living" is adversely affected by my proposal and it merely imposes the "same tax on everyone" in America.
I'm the only one advocating FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY because I actually PAY THE BILLS and then implement tax policies and program reforms that dramatically reduce the bills in the future. I accomplish this without harming any American by reducing their standard of living one iota but by actually increase the personal wealth of over 90% of all Americans using the money they earn without depending upon someone else's money.
I challenge anyone in either the Republican or Democratic Party to accomplish what I've proposed and to start Paying the Bills immediately which would be the first step in being Fiscally Responsible.
Fiscal Responsibility is exclusively about PAYING THE BILLS as what the bills are really has nothing to do with being Fiscally Responsible.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 1, 2013 4:02:30 GMT
I misspoke in one of my last posts regarding the Bush tax cuts. They WERE in fact, for the most part made permanent by Obama. It was only the rich...those making over $450,000/yr who got a tax increase. Here's a good review of that issue:
"The Bush tax cuts, passed in 2001 and 2003, were designed to sunset after 2010 so they could pass Congress through the reconciliation process. They were extended by President Obama through 2012 so as to not raise taxes during the recession/weak recovery; additionally, in exchange for extending them two years, Obama was able to negotiate the payroll tax holiday and the extension of Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC).
The most recent extension of these cuts has allowed conservative members of Congress (and others, like Grover Norquist) to claim victory on these tax cuts, which briefly expired on Dec. 31, 2012, only to be reinstated almost in full. Conservative representative Dave Camp (R-Mich.) summed up the situation by saying, “After more than a decade of criticizing these tax cuts, Democrats are finally joining Republicans in making them permanent.” Indeed, in many ways these are now Democrats’ tax cuts as much (if not more so) as they are Republicans.’ In the House of Representatives, the bill was passed by majority Democratic votes.
With this new agreement, Democratic members of Congress and President Obama have permanently set tax rates—in the sense that the rates don’t expire, not that future Congresses can’t change them—at extraordinarily low levels by historical standards. Short of major revenue increases, projected general revenue consequently will grossly underfund government services and investments; relative to a current law baseline (in which the tax cuts would have expired), passing the income tax rate cuts will lead to $3.2 trillion in lost revenue over a decade, according to Citizens for Tax Justice. President Obama’s initial negotiating proposal to Republicans would have cost about $800 billion less, notably by raising taxes above a lower $200,000 ($250,000 for joint filers) threshold, taxing dividends as ordinary income, and limiting tax savings on itemized deductions to 28 percent. In short, the policy choice made on the Bush tax cuts is expensive. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities demonstrated in this 2010 chart, the Bush tax cuts have been projected to remain a large component of deficits in the coming years; they have also been responsible for much of the disparity between the current law and current policy baselines submitted by the Congressional Budget Office with each budget update.
The projected costliness of the Bush tax cuts should not come as a surprise; they have been expensive since enacted. They played a major role in the huge swing from surpluses to deficits we experienced over 2002–2011. Remember, in Jan. 2001, CBO had projected cumulative surpluses of $5.6 trillion over the 2002–2011 period. What we saw instead was cumulative deficits of $6.1 trillion—an $11.7 trillion swing from surpluses to deficits. While a number of factors contributed to this swing, including the Great Recession, stimulus efforts, supplemental war and other supplemental appropriations, as well as increased security spending, a huge part of the swing—about 16 percent—was due to the Bush tax cuts. The figure below indicates the role these tax cuts played.
While the Bush tax cuts were designed as overwhelmingly regressive, the most recent deal does add some progressivity to the tax code, by allowing the cuts to expire on the top 0.7 percent of taxpayers (remember that even if taxes do go up on someone earning $500,000, that person still enjoys lower rates on income below the $400,000/$450,000 threshold). And while there is something to be said for letting these cuts expire for the wealthiest 0.7 percent, remember polling has shown that Americans support raising taxes on the rich by an overwhelming margin. There is a reason why Americans support this: in the last decade, the tax cuts contributed to widening income inequality by a) providing greater percentage increases in after-tax income for high-income households than they did for low-income households, and b) providing greater increases in pre-tax income for high-income households than low-income households through preferential treatment of capital income.
Higher deficits in the future, thanks to all-but-certain continuing low revenue levels, will give the GOP many opportunities to pressure Democrats into accepting spending cuts. And while there is something to be said for the stability that comes with a more permanent tax code, this permanent solution is not a good one. It will not be too long before Democrats will again be forced to fight for more revenue increases because of this decision—and who knows if they will have the circumstances in their corner to persuade enough Republicans to join them."
- See more at: www.epi.org/blog/bush-tax-cuts-stay/#sthash.vXOESuBr.dpuf
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 1, 2013 4:10:48 GMT
My God, man! You always claim to be a "card carrying Libertarian" but there is nothing....NOTHING.....in your rhetoric that supports that. Libertarians, like Republicans, are for fiscal responsibility.
I'm the only person on World Politics Forum that has addressed FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY.
The FIRST RULE of FISCAL REPONSIBILITY is PAY THE BILLS!!!!
I haven't seen a single proposal by Republicans, Democrats, or even the Libertarian Party that PAYS THE BILLS except for a general statement by Gary Johnson during his 2012 presidential bid as the Libertarian Candidate that he would insist on a BALANCED BUDGET his first year in office. I don't know how he planned to do that but at least it was a campaign promise that neither Romney/Ryan or Obama/Biden was willing to make.
I've proposed a revision to the federal tax codes on this forum that balances the budget in the first year of implementation!!! That is FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY.
We might not like what the Congress has authorized spending on but that does not negate our responsibility to PAY THE BILLS. My tax proposals at both the State and Federal level of taxation (and the taxpayer is responsible for both) attempts to remove existing inequities in our current tax codes while PAYING THE BILLS. That is FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY.
I don't like Federal Welfare Assistance because the Federal Government is not responsible for the Welfare of the People under the US Constitution. The States, under the State Constitutions, are responsible for the Welfare of the People. The Welfare of the People cannot be simply ignore and the States are Constitutionally responsible for providing any financial or program assistance to meet the needs of the People that they cannot afford to met on their own. The problem is that the States are failing in their Constitutionally delegated role to Provide for the Welfare of the People. The day that all 50 States step up and fulfill their Responsibility to the People and ensure that no person goes without a roof over their heads, when no person goes hungry because they can't afford food to eat, when no person goes without quality health care when they can't afford it, and when the States fully fund their own school systems, THEN WE CAN END THESE FEDERAL PROGRAMS.
THE DAY THE STATES ASSUME THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES AS THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE THERE WILL BE NO NEED FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO THE PEOPLE.
I'm also the only person to present a fair tax plan at both the State and Federal level that attempts to balance the tax burden relative to income for all Americans. It is absurd that the lowest income individuals and families have the highest tax burden relative to income when they total state and federal tax burden is addressed. They lose at both levels when compared to higher income Americans. My tax proposals actually provide for the bottom 50% of the American workforce by dramatically reducing their tax burden which will reduce poverty dramatically over time.
I'm the only person that has provided a pragmatic plan to fundamentally end Social Security and completely eliminate Medicare. No Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian has made a proposal anywhere close to what I've proposed. I literally cut over 30% of government when "privatization" of Social Security is accomplished. Yes, it does require an "upfront" expenditure but often times an upfront cost is necessary to achieve a long term savings and that is the case here. In addressing it though I provided the funding mechanism by imposing the same expenditure on ALL Americans that has traditionally been imposed on only the workers in America. Not a single person's "standard of living" is adversely affected by my proposal and it merely imposes the "same tax on everyone" in America.
I'm the only one advocating FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY because I actually PAY THE BILLS and then implement tax policies and program reforms that dramatically reduce the bills in the future. I accomplish this without harming any American by reducing their standard of living one iota but by actually increase the personal wealth of over 90% of all Americans using the money they earn without depending upon someone else's money.
I challenge anyone in either the Republican or Democratic Party to accomplish what I've proposed and to start Paying the Bills immediately which would be the first step in being Fiscally Responsible.
Fiscal Responsibility is exclusively about PAYING THE BILLS as what the bills are really has nothing to do with being Fiscally Responsible.
|
|
