| Jojo T. Hun | Saturday, April 16, 2011 - 09:42 pm 
American citizens (and anyone else who feels like contributing): Who's against doing all four, in a package, in an effort to reduce the budget deficits...and why?
cutting non-defense discretionary spending including corporate welfare
cutting military spending by reducing somewhat our military obligations around the world
increasing income taxes across the board and reforming the tax code to simplify and close loopholes
reforming entitlement programs (social security, medicare) around the margins, to make them less expensive, but maintaining their existing features |
| Synicus (White Giant) | Saturday, April 16, 2011 - 11:35 pm
What is the point here?
I guess I would be against it.
Cut non-defense spending including corporate welfare. Discretion does not work in greed land, this is how bridges collapse and dams fail.
Cut military spending and world obligations, All for it, but somewhat is too little.
Increase income tax across the board. No, becuase income tax increases spending. It might make sence if government was fiscaly responsible. Reform could help, but at what price?
Reforming entitlement programs could help but it won't stop Republicans from blaming the smallest peice of the pie.
mmmm pie...... |
| Linebacker Six | Saturday, April 16, 2011 - 11:50 pm
The only way the National Debt is going to be dealt with is through controlled Inflation, as always.
Believe all the political nonsense from both political parties all you like; but it's all only rhetoric to give the impression of "doing something" to the voters. |
| Parsifal (Kebir Blue) | Sunday, April 17, 2011 - 01:25 am
Jojo,
I would agree with all your points in principal, but as always the devil's in the details. Like, where do you cut military? Get out of Korea or the Phillipines? Make european NATO countries go it alone? Or just scrap a few experimental military projects? |
| Jojo T. Hun | Sunday, April 17, 2011 - 03:17 am
Such ennui.
@Cynicus: Sorry, I don't really understand anything you're trying to say.
@L6: The national debt is normally dealt with through economic expansion more than through inflation. A large deficit without willing lenders will not be so benign. And controlled inflation can become uncontrolled inflation which can ruin a nation.
@Parsifal: As soon as you mention details people feel compelled to object. I could say "Korea" and someone will have some story about why we need an increased presence there. Likewise any other country we're in.
I'm for a strong defense, but I think 20% could be cut without significant loss of function. Don't you? |
| Synicus (White Giant) | Sunday, April 17, 2011 - 01:26 pm
Hmm let me put it this way.
Good ideas on paper.
The first one is too vague for the level of corruption.
Second point, simply would never happen.
Third point, 'pretending it would work' The next party in power would turn it back into dept and then we are stuck with higher tax and new party claiming they need to raise taxes.
Forth point, theese margins are marginal unless ya open up a can of worms by reforming healthcare, the insurance industry and the drug industry to reduce Medicare. |
| Crazy Eye (Little Upsilon) | Sunday, April 17, 2011 - 10:38 pm
The truth of the matter JOJO is that the people in government know that the mess can't be cleaned up. They know the dollar is going to colapse and that is why they are running the debt up so fast right now. They want to get the most use out of the fiat dollar as they can while it still holds value. Soon it will not have value anymore. |
| Crafty (Kebir Blue) | Sunday, April 17, 2011 - 10:47 pm
Hope y'all know how to grow your own food and start a fire :P |
| Scarlet (Little Upsilon) | Monday, April 18, 2011 - 03:41 am
Quick answers.
1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. This is guaranteed to be unnecessary (see 4).
4. Reform? No. Cut? Yes. |
| Lorelei (Fearless Blue) | Monday, April 18, 2011 - 05:41 am
Wow, JoJo, you still alive?????? |
| Jojo T. Hun | Monday, April 18, 2011 - 09:13 pm
@Synicus: Lots of things "that would never happen" actually do happen, though many don't. It's interesting that your objections are mostly that it won't happen, not that you wouldn't prefer it to happen.
@Crazy Eye: Hey! And, interesting theory.
@Crafty: Back to the apocalyptic visions of the 70s.
@Scarlet: re #4, I mean reforms that would cut (raising retirement age, means-testing soc sec and medicare) and reforms that would increase revenue (raise soc sec tax) and reforms that would reduce waste (lots of that in medicare). So if all 4 were on the table as one, you'd decline?
@JKL: Hi, yes, it's become a habit. |
| Synicus (White Giant) | Tuesday, April 19, 2011 - 08:37 am
Well, it's out of my hands. What do you think CEO's and Emperor Trump would want? |
| Scarlet (Little Upsilon) | Tuesday, April 19, 2011 - 02:08 pm
I meant eliminating those programs entirely. |
| Scarlet (Little Upsilon) | Tuesday, April 19, 2011 - 02:14 pm
I wonder how many terms Emperor Trump would plan on . . . 1, 2, 6? |
