• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

national debt

laska

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
402
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Anyone have a plan to pay off national debt. Here are some of my ideas in this area.

(suppport free trade)-economic freedom is not inherently wrong IMO. Each side of a trade benefits when the information is transparent(and this is the role of government in the market.) Free trade embraces specialization which allows everyone to benefit from the other's talents. Instead of complaining about outsourcing, it should be embraced internationally as the lowest cost producers of goods and services allows for more wealth to be created and benefits the consumers.

adopt an international triple A accounting standard to facilitate international investment. Transparency and truth maximizes efficiency of the market system as resources are allocated to the most efficient companies that produce goods and services. Poor investors hurt the economy as it allocates resources to inefficient producers.

Adopt a simple flat tax. This increases efficiency of the market as it frees up more labor(tax accountants and the time individuals and companies spend in this area) to produce real goods and services. Another moral aspect of this is that progressive tax rates undermine agency and the moral test to see if the rich will freely choose to lift the poor. Charity(pure love with no ulterior motive) is the hopeful end of humanity and it can only be developed through agency, not force.

drastically cut health costs by making illegal all unhealthy products such as cigarettes, snack foods, bad cooking oils, soft drinks, etc. Ban all false nutritional advertising. Implement massive advertising campaign on a healthy lifestyle of exercise and diet(whole grains, fruits, vegetables, meat sparingly.) Other things are as simple as nurses washing their hands between patients which kills many each year with infections and costs the government billions, government buying drugs at market prices, limiting liability costs, creative use of technology to cut costs, high obesity premiums.

Defense budget-lower defense spending by a real 5 percent per year for five years and then freeze spending at 75 percent of current budget. (smarter war on terror using police and small, highly trained specialty forces rather than large conventional ones, elimination of expensive and "out there" hardware programs, only mass produce hardware when the current is not effective against the best, cooperation of different branches of military to to increase efficiency and cut costs such as the fairly recent decision to consolidate some training bases.)-(I know very little about the military and so these may very well be sort of stupid but I thought I would throw them out there-it is a debate forum :2razz: .)

reinvent the bureaucracy and eliminate any overlap that is counterproductive-create a structure where there are incentives for management to lower costs and increase productivity.

education-the total cost of education at all levels of government could be drastically lowered by a computer and interactive education system. Let me give an example. I recently took an accounting course at BYU where the lessons were on Cd's that you pop into the labtop. They put a camera on the teacher and he gave each lesson with visual graphics and models on the side that would pop up to help explain concepts(sort of cool that you could make him talk real fast or slow. You could also replay any part of his lesson so that it really was better than a live class.) The class also had its own message board where students could ask questions and could email the instructor. The way this can save money is pretty obvious. This one lesson can teach millions of students instead of hiring thousands of accounting teaches and countless hours spent coming up with and teaching lessons. So an example of how this would play out in a high school setting. Instead of having several physics teachers teaching 25 students a class, have all the students of physics in the whole school come to a large class room that sits several hundred students, have one teacher that teaches maybe 1 1/2 hour class a few days a week, and the students are given a CD for their labtops where a lesson of physics is given by a world class teacher, with interactive models. The drastic lowering of the cost of education would allow all people to develop their talents without regards to financial situation and this would benefit society in many aspects.

Redesign the structure of welfare to try and eliminate corruption. A key principle would be that all welfare to be funded by donations and the recipients would have to work in behalf of society (up to their abilities) in order to receive assistance. Any benefits would be paid directly to offset needs such as paying an electric bill, or a mortgage payment instead of just handing money over(this would require local leadership with freedom to make decisions based on each individual curcumstances.) Provide job and career training. Also have a network of orchards, canneries, and donated clothing outlets worked by those who need assistance and volunteers, all of this funded by a voluntary monthly fast(or even weekly one) of two meals by the public with the costs of the meals plus any more they choose to give to the welfare plan-basically all of this is patterned after the LDS(Mormon) welfare plan.

raise retirement and SS age to 75(for those who are healthy.)

Create a structure to eliminate pork(maybe line item veto and other measures)

balance budget amendment

systematically pay off debt as budget surplus starts to come in, starting with foreign held debt.

Eventually lower tax rates to about 10 percent of income(local, state, and federal combined. Pass an amendment to this effect.)
 
Last edited:

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
laska said:
Anyone have a plan to pay off national debt. Here are some of my ideas in this area.

(suppport free trade)-economic freedom is not inherently wrong IMO. Each side of a trade benefits when the information is transparent(and this is the role of government in the market.)
No immediate impact on the budget.

adopt an international triple A accounting standard to facilitate international investment. Transparency and truth maximizes efficiency of the market system as resources are allocated to the most efficient companies that produce goods and services. Poor investors hurt the economy as it allocates resources to inefficient producers.
No immediate impact on the budget.

Adopt a simple flat tax. This increases efficiency of the market as it frees up more labor(tax accountants and the time individuals and companies spend in this area) to produce real goods and services. Another moral aspect of this is that progressive tax rates undermine agency and the moral test to see if the rich will freely choose to lift the poor. Charity(pure love with no ulterior motive) is the hopeful end of humanity and it can only be developed through agency, not force.
Whether it has an effect on the budget depends upon the amount of the tax. Disagree with your conclusions about it, tho. We know how the rich will help the poor left ot their own agency.

drastically cut health costs by making illegal all unhealthy products such as cigarettes, snack foods, bad cooking oils, soft drinks, etc. Ban all false nutritional advertising. Implement massive advertising campaign on a healthy lifestyle of exercise and diet(whole grains, fruits, vegetables, meat sparingly.) Other things are as simple as nurses washing their hands between patients which kills many each year with infections and costs the government billions, government buying drugs at market prices, limiting liability costs, creative use of technology to cut costs, high obesity premiums.
Even if this were feasible to implement, it is unlike to make a dent in the roughly $500 billion the Govt spends annually on medicare, medicaid, and other health services.

Defense budget-lower defense spending by a real 5 percent per year for five years and then freeze spending at 75 percent of current budget.
A 5% decrease would equate to about $25 billion in savings.

reinvent the bureaucracy and eliminate any overlap that is counterproductive-create a structure where there are incentives for management to lower costs and increase productivity.
Easier said than done. According to Delay, there is no fat in the budget anyway after 10 years of lean Republican control of Congress.

education-the total cost of education at all levels of government could be drastically lowered by a computer and interactive education system.
Govt spent $88 billion on education in 2004 -- big chunks on student loans and special ed. programs.

Redesign the structure of welfare to try and eliminate corruption. A key principle would be that all welfare to be funded by donations and the recipients would have to work in behalf of society (up to their abilities) in order to receive assistance.

Spending on "welfare" was $190 billion in 2004, which included all forms of income security (unemployment compensation, Supplemental Security Income, the refundable portion of the earned income and child tax credits, Food Stamps, family support, child nutrition, and foster care.) If you cut that in half, you save $90 billion.

raise retirement and SS age to 75(for those who are healthy.)
Or better yet, do this and make it means tested. I don't know what the saving would be for doing this, but given the Govt spent $491 billion on SS last year, the savings would be significant. Maybe $100-150 billion?

Create a structure to eliminate pork(maybe line item veto and other measures)
Been looking for that forever!

balance budget amendment
Hear hear.

systematically pay off debt as budget surplus starts to come in, starting with foreign held debt.
That is the goal.

Eventually lower tax rates to about 10 percent of income(local, state, and federal combined. Pass an amendment to this effect.)
Sounds great.

Problem is, with the cuts you have suggested, we are saving maybe $300 billion? Last year the govt borrowed $550 billion. We need more drastic cuts or revenue increases.

But I think you are on the right track. IMO we need to reduce SS benefits; I'd make them means tested because the Warren Buffet types just don't need to be receiving Government welfare. That would save a lot.

We have to do something about health care costs. I don't know what the answer is.

I'd cut everythig else accross the board about 10% (save us about $200 billion) and reinsitute the tax rates we had in the 90s. The economy did just fine in the 90s and that would pick up about $400 billion in revenue.

That would do the trick.
 

Old and wise

Active member
Joined
Aug 28, 2005
Messages
310
Reaction score
0
Location
New England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It really does not matter. By the time the shrub's term is over, this country will be bankrupt and we will be owned by China and the Saudis.
 

laska

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
402
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Iriemon, I like the cross the board ten percent cuts. The free trade and health care ideas would not save much short term, but long term the savings would be enormous (and I agree probably not politically feasable on most of them, but at the very least I would try and tax unhealthy products as best as possible, ban as many as feasible, and not allow these companies to advertise.) The education cuts would be at all levels of government(is 88 billion all that is spent there?) and in the long run having a really good education system available to all people at very low costs would help the economy grow as all people get a chance to develop their talents.
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
laska said:
Iriemon, I like the cross the board ten percent cuts. The free trade and health care ideas would not save much short term, but long term the savings would be enormous (and I agree probably not politically feasable on most of them, but at the very least I would try and tax unhealthy products as best as possible, ban as many as feasible, and not allow these companies to advertise.) The education cuts would be at all levels of government(is 88 billion all that is spent there?) and in the long run having a really good education system available to all people at very low costs would help the economy grow as all people get a chance to develop their talents.
Fair enough. My point is that these cuts are not sufficient to do the job now. 10% accross the board doesn't do the trick unless we increase revenues as well.

You can see the $88 billion the Govt spent on various education programs at the OMB spreadsheet breaking down 2004 spending, category 500. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/sheets/27_1.xls
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Old and wise said:
It really does not matter. By the time the shrub's term is over, this country will be bankrupt and we will be owned by China and the Saudis.
If we don't start getting Congress the message you will be right.
 

Canuck

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
849
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Old and wise said:
It really does not matter. By the time the shrub's term is over, this country will be bankrupt and we will be owned by China and the Saudis.
you are indeed wise
old hmm dont know about that
I would estimate the debt at 10 trillion $ by the time bushwhacker leaves
some 8 trillion$ over What the Fed's guru Greenspan said was the limit to borrowing
when he said 6 years ago NO MORE BORROWING

Hey lets all make new money for all of North America
 
Last edited:

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Canuck said:
you are indeed wise
old hmm dont know about that
I would estimate the debt at 10 trillion $ by the time bushwhacker leaves
some 8 trillion$ over What the Fed's guru Greenspan said was the limit to borrowing
when he said 6 years ago NO MORE BORROWING

Hey lets all make new money for all of North America
Do you have a cite to Greenspan's quote on this?

Ironically, he has been a major proponent of tax cuts, which are a big part of why the US budget is in such sorry shape.
 

Canuck

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
849
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Iriemon said:
Do you have a cite to Greenspan's quote on this?

Ironically, he has been a major proponent of tax cuts, which are a big part of why the US budget is in such sorry shape.
look it up i did have it but they usurped it on that site
try looking for all of the feds speeches for 1999
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Greenspan said no such thing. A review of all of Greenspan's speeches in 1999 accessible on the Fed web site produced no such statement. The closest any speech comes is this warning from his May 6, 1999 speech:

"A more distant concern, but one that cannot be readily dismissed, is the very condition that has enabled the surge in American household and business demands to help sustain global stability: our rising trade and current account deficits. There is a limit to how long and how far deficits can be sustained, since current account deficits add to net foreign claims on the United States.

It is very difficult to judge at what point debt service costs become unduly burdensome and can no longer be sustained. There is no evidence at this point that markets are disinclined to readily finance our foreign net imbalance. But the arithmetic of foreign debt accumulation and compounding interest costs does indicate somewhere in the future that, unless reversed, our growing international imbalances are apt to create significant problems for our economy."


You will note that nowhere in this statement does Greenspan so much as suggest a dollar limit.

Over the years, Greenspan has consistently been an advocate of budgetary discipline, as typified by this comment from his February 25, 2004 speech:

"For about a decade, the rules laid out in the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and the later modifications and extensions of the act, provided a procedural framework that helped the Congress make the difficult decisions that were required to forge a better fiscal balance. However, the brief emergence of surpluses eroded the will to adhere to those rules, and many of the provisions that helped to restrain budgetary decision making in the 1990s--in particular, the limits on discretionary spending and the PAYGO requirements--were violated more and more frequently and eventually allowed to expire. In recent years, budget debates have turned to choices offered by those advocating tax cuts and those advocating increased spending. To date, actions that would lower forthcoming deficits have received only narrow support, and many analysts are becoming increasingly concerned that, without a restoration of the budget enforcement mechanisms and the fundamental political will they signal, the inbuilt political bias in favor of red ink will once again become entrenched."

While Greenspan said nothing about a dollar limit, he did address the relative size of the debt...

"In general, fiscal systems are presumed stable if the ratio of debt in the hands of the public to nominal GDP (a proxy for the revenue base) is itself stable. A rapidly rising ratio of debt to GDP, for example, implies an ever-increasing and possibly accelerating ratio of interest payments to the revenue base. Conversely, once debt has fallen to zero, budget surpluses generally require the accumulation of private assets, an undesirable policy in the judgment of many. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd.../testimony.htm
 

Canuck

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
849
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
oldreliable67 said:
Greenspan said no such thing. A review of all of Greenspan's speeches in 1999 accessible on the Fed web site produced no such statement. The closest any speech comes is this warning from his May 6, 1999 speech:

"A more distant concern, but one that cannot be readily dismissed, is the very condition that has enabled the surge in American household and business demands to help sustain global stability: our rising trade and current account deficits. There is a limit to how long and how far deficits can be sustained, since current account deficits add to net foreign claims on the United States.

It is very difficult to judge at what point debt service costs become unduly burdensome and can no longer be sustained. There is no evidence at this point that markets are disinclined to readily finance our foreign net imbalance. But the arithmetic of foreign debt accumulation and compounding interest costs does indicate somewhere in the future that, unless reversed, our growing international imbalances are apt to create significant problems for our economy."


You will note that nowhere in this statement does Greenspan so much as suggest a dollar limit.

Over the years, Greenspan has consistently been an advocate of budgetary discipline, as typified by this comment from his February 25, 2004 speech:

"For about a decade, the rules laid out in the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and the later modifications and extensions of the act, provided a procedural framework that helped the Congress make the difficult decisions that were required to forge a better fiscal balance. However, the brief emergence of surpluses eroded the will to adhere to those rules, and many of the provisions that helped to restrain budgetary decision making in the 1990s--in particular, the limits on discretionary spending and the PAYGO requirements--were violated more and more frequently and eventually allowed to expire. In recent years, budget debates have turned to choices offered by those advocating tax cuts and those advocating increased spending. To date, actions that would lower forthcoming deficits have received only narrow support, and many analysts are becoming increasingly concerned that, without a restoration of the budget enforcement mechanisms and the fundamental political will they signal, the inbuilt political bias in favor of red ink will once again become entrenched."

While Greenspan said nothing about a dollar limit, he did address the relative size of the debt...

"In general, fiscal systems are presumed stable if the ratio of debt in the hands of the public to nominal GDP (a proxy for the revenue base) is itself stable. A rapidly rising ratio of debt to GDP, for example, implies an ever-increasing and possibly accelerating ratio of interest payments to the revenue base. Conversely, once debt has fallen to zero, budget surpluses generally require the accumulation of private assets, an undesirable policy in the judgment of many. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd.../testimony.htm
it was a warning that increased Borrowing "would be troublsome"
that was in the speech
I should of put on my hard drive

that was at the 2 trillion mark chk when when was the time of 2 trillion deficit it would be in that one
He gave a warning that "a continued borrowing would be troublesome " when it was at the 2 trillion mark
or something close to that effect
NOw that it will be at the 10 trillion mark or more by the time bushman leaves ( he is saying all sense of reality is gone)
"the debt is out of control"
 
Last edited:

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Greenspan has never advocated a specific nominal limit or maximum on the national debt. He has, however, always warned about the impact on spending resulting from any relaxation of budget controls. He has continuously advocated statutory budgetary controls to (hopefully) reign in the political attraction to spending. For example, in 2004, he said, "without a restoration of the budget enforcement mechanisms and the fundamental political will they signal, the inbuilt political bias in favor of red ink will once again become entrenched." www.fed.gov/speeches
 

Canuck

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
849
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
HIs words were well chosen
"Further borrowing would be troublesome"

I geuss that troublesome part is upon you now
Last I heard of Green Span
was leaking to the French how the US deficit was "out of control"
there will be trouble servicing it in all likelyhood as his words were well chosen and went there deliberately to ease it on the the world

America Is facing a terrible finacial crisis BUSH fooled you all
NO need to go to IRAQ
Canada and mexicao Mabe even south america will all share one currency
we can fix it
with only 5% of the worlds population America acts so arrogant of strength
America will soon be as destitute as the rest of us no need to panic
we will all be equal of status and mabe we can work together when America finally looses her arrogance of her strength number 1 best better then all the rest attitude

IT's a good situation we can move on to a higher plain
but get your suicidal leaders under control they dont think about you they only think in conquest for the Elite profiteering
bush like his grand pappy would profit off ww3 and have no quams about it


READ what republican congressman thinks Ron Paul
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2005/121005slamsbush.htm
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Canuck said:
look it up i did have it but they usurped it on that site
try looking for all of the feds speeches for 1999
Canuck, I am trying to take your positions seriously. If you claim someone said something, you are obligated to provide a source for your claim. It's not my obligation; I'm not claiming Greenspan said it. I'm not going to spend hours wading through his speeches to try to find out if what you are claiming is true, or just BS. I figure it's the latter.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Porkbusters -- Cut the Fat!!!

Originally posted by RightatNYU on:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=4694

Here's how to help:

Identify some wasteful spending in your state or (even better) Congressional District. Go to N.Z. Bear's new PorkBusters page to locate pork spending already identified in your area, or to learn how to find some yourself.

Then call and email your Senators and Representative and ask them if they're willing to support having that program cut or -- failing that -- what else they're willing to cut in order to fund Katrina relief. (Be polite, identify yourself as a local constituent who is politically active and let them know you're working with a group of people as the representative in your area to cut pork). Then go back to NZ Bear's page and to this post on Debate Politics and post your results.

So far this campaign has already caused members of Congress to return over $84,000,000 in specific programs to the federal treasury, and has gotten committments from numerous other politicians on both sides of the aisle.

So take action, and help restore responsibility to our budget!
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
oldreliable67 said:
Porkbusters -- Cut the Fat!!!

Originally posted by RightatNYU on:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=4694

Here's how to help:

Identify some wasteful spending in your state or (even better) Congressional District. Go to N.Z. Bear's new PorkBusters page to locate pork spending already identified in your area, or to learn how to find some yourself.

Then call and email your Senators and Representative and ask them if they're willing to support having that program cut or -- failing that -- what else they're willing to cut in order to fund Katrina relief. (Be polite, identify yourself as a local constituent who is politically active and let them know you're working with a group of people as the representative in your area to cut pork). Then go back to NZ Bear's page and to this post on Debate Politics and post your results.

So far this campaign has already caused members of Congress to return over $84,000,000 in specific programs to the federal treasury, and has gotten committments from numerous other politicians on both sides of the aisle.

So take action, and help restore responsibility to our budget!
I think this kind of stuff is really great, as long as it doesn't because a sidetrack for adressing the real problem. $84 million is about the amount of debt added every hour.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Iriemon,

It can only be considered a step in the right direction. It certainly isn't a solution, but right here, right now, anything that gets the attention of those who indulge in the pork-fest is welcomed.

How bad is it? It has gotten so bad that even some Democrates are thinking that they might capture a few fiscal hawk votes by criticizing the deficit. From the WSJ, 9/27/05:

"You know spending discipline has collapsed on Capitol Hill when one of the lone voices for fiscal restraint is House Minority Leader Nance Pelosi."

Even Peggy Noonan, the former Repub speech writer, said of Bush: "George W. Bush is a big spender. He has never vetoed a spending bill. When Congress serves up a big slab of fat, crackling port, Mr. Bush responds with one big question: Got any barbecue sauce?" WSJ, 10/08/2005

Thats how bad it has gotten!
 

Canuck

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
849
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
oldreliable67 said:
Iriemon,

It can only be considered a step in the right direction. It certainly isn't a solution, but right here, right now, anything that gets the attention of those who indulge in the pork-fest is welcomed.

How bad is it? It has gotten so bad that even some Democrates are thinking that they might capture a few fiscal hawk votes by criticizing the deficit. From the WSJ, 9/27/05:

"You know spending discipline has collapsed on Capitol Hill when one of the lone voices for fiscal restraint is House Minority Leader Nance Pelosi."

Even Peggy Noonan, the former Repub speech writer, said of Bush: "George W. Bush is a big spender. He has never vetoed a spending bill. When Congress serves up a big slab of fat, crackling port, Mr. Bush responds with one big question: Got any barbecue sauce?" WSJ, 10/08/2005

Thats how bad it has gotten!
thats because hes a man on a mission and signs all to get their vote on other issues such as IRAQ etc..
scratch me ill scratch you
they are all bums and puppets to the RICH ELITE AMERICANS
and when presented with a common man america looks the other way
Ralph Nader is a good example there have been more in the past
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
oldreliable67 said:
Iriemon,

It can only be considered a step in the right direction. It certainly isn't a solution, but right here, right now, anything that gets the attention of those who indulge in the pork-fest is welcomed.

How bad is it? It has gotten so bad that even some Democrates are thinking that they might capture a few fiscal hawk votes by criticizing the deficit. From the WSJ, 9/27/05:

"You know spending discipline has collapsed on Capitol Hill when one of the lone voices for fiscal restraint is House Minority Leader Nance Pelosi."

Even Peggy Noonan, the former Repub speech writer, said of Bush: "George W. Bush is a big spender. He has never vetoed a spending bill. When Congress serves up a big slab of fat, crackling port, Mr. Bush responds with one big question: Got any barbecue sauce?" WSJ, 10/08/2005

Thats how bad it has gotten!
I certainly agree its a positive step in the right direction, at least the problem is being discussed. I support whoever is for cutting down the borrowing, I don't care if they are Republican, Democrat, Whig or Tory.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Iriemon,

I support whoever is for cutting down the borrowing, I don't care if they are Republican, Democrat, Whig or Tory.
That approach is very, very tempting. As much as I would like to concur, I fear that it risks 'throwing out the baby with the bath water'. While a return to fiscal sanity is very, very high on the priority list, there are other things to be considered as well, e.g., the environment, national defense, etc.

The hard part: Where and what are my tradeoffs? What am I willing to give up to get fiscal sanity? That, I think, is for each of us to decide for ourselves.

But, whatever your choices, you gotta have a return to fiscal sanity in there!
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
oldreliable67 said:
Iriemon,

That approach is very, very tempting. As much as I would like to concur, I fear that it risks 'throwing out the baby with the bath water'. While a return to fiscal sanity is very, very high on the priority list, there are other things to be considered as well, e.g., the environment, national defense, etc.

The hard part: Where and what are my tradeoffs? What am I willing to give up to get fiscal sanity? That, I think, is for each of us to decide for ourselves.

But, whatever your choices, you gotta have a return to fiscal sanity in there!
LOL fair enough, I'm not quite a one issue voter. However, I do believe the long term health of the economy is intrisically related to the long term health of America.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I do believe the long term health of the economy is intrisically related to the long term health of America.
As do I. As do I.

And its an incredibly difficult balancing act. You know, getting the old 'scarce resources, unlimited wants' thing in balance. Makes it even more difficult with a bunch of 'porkers' in Congress like we have now...:doh
 

gwynn

New member
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
One of the larger sources of tax revenue has nearly vanished in the US. Corporate tax rates have dropped drastically due to increased tax breaks and offshoring. For example in 2003, accelerated depreciation rates accounted for a further $33 billion tax break for 275 of the largest US companies, while offshoring accounts for an estimated tax loss of $35-70 billion per year.

Corporate taxes have dropped to a mere 6% of government expenditures, from 11% during the Clinton administration. This is not a new trend, they have been dropping since the fifties when they accounted for 25% of expenditures.

Closing loopholes, eliminating abused tax breaks and cracking down on companies which hide profits and assets in offshore tax havens could add a couple hundred billion to the coffers.

( see http://www.ctj.org/itep/ "Corporate Income Taxes in the Bush Years" )
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
gwynn said:
One of the larger sources of tax revenue has nearly vanished in the US. Corporate tax rates have dropped drastically due to increased tax breaks and offshoring. For example in 2003, accelerated depreciation rates accounted for a further $33 billion tax break for 275 of the largest US companies, while offshoring accounts for an estimated tax loss of $35-70 billion per year.

Corporate taxes have dropped to a mere 6% of government expenditures, from 11% during the Clinton administration. This is not a new trend, they have been dropping since the fifties when they accounted for 25% of expenditures.

Closing loopholes, eliminating abused tax breaks and cracking down on companies which hide profits and assets in offshore tax havens could add a couple hundred billion to the coffers.

( see http://www.ctj.org/itep/ "Corporate Income Taxes in the Bush Years" )
I think you numbers are a little old, Gwyn. Corporate tax revenues have exploded over the last two years, which if nothing else, suggests corps are making big profits.

Corporate income taxes:

2000: 207
2003: 131
2004: 189
2005: 279

2005 is preliminary, but represents 13% of all federal tax revenues.

-2004: http://cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0
2005: http://cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6693&sequence=0

IMO, corporate taxes should be eliminated altogether. They are complex, costly to enforce, and add only about 10% to Fed revenues. The effect of such taxes is that the cost is added to the price of goods and services, making them more expensive for consumers and making our corps less competitive abroad.

Corporations are not individuals, but entities. What should be taxed (IMO) are the individuals who benefit from the corporation -- employees, stockholders, and management.
 

gwynn

New member
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Hadn't seen the prelim numbers for 2005 yet. It seems from the comments there that much of the increase is likely from paying the deferred taxes resulting from the previous acceleration of depreciation. This is to expire this year, but still may be extended. If it is extended most of the projected increase in revenue would be pushed forward to a later date or, in the case of it becoming permanent, disappear altogether.

I disagree with the premise that corporations should be free of taxes.

"The effect of such taxes is that the cost is added to the price of goods and services, making them more expensive for consumers and making our corps less competitive abroad."

This is also the effect of employer side of payroll taxes, all sales taxes, property taxes on commercial real estate, taxes on energy sources ( gas taxes being the largest ), etc.

Since corporate taxes are standard in most countries, those in the US have little impact on competetiveness.
 
Top Bottom