If that is directed at me you are failing to miss the point...60 billion a year in additional revenues is a drop in the bucket{one and a half percent} to the current problem
Fiscal cliff ? or is it ?
- Thread starter Alien Allen
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
-
75Replies
-
864Views
-
0Participant count
-
Participants list
Accountable
Well-Known Member
I agree.
We have 2.3 trillion mandatory in mandatory spending{2013}...this gets spent regardless on SS medical care and military benefits.
In 2011 the Federal govt obtained 2.3 trillion{note just enough to cover some entitlements}
We have budgeted 3.8 trillion dollars for 2013...the negotiations are over 1.265 trillion{discretionary spending }which covers everything else that isnt listed above.
As we can see we have a major problem...As revenues are just enough to match mandatory spending.{roughly}
There really isnt alot that can be done with discretionary spending unless we decide on some serious cuts.
Housing help..reduced funding on education,defense and various others agencies etc.
As we can see have a major problem...we would have to make some major cuts in discretionary spending.
Here is a rough breakdown of discretionary spending
Even if we cut defense in half we would save only about 400 billion.
Anyway to fix the problem would take some serious revenue gains...which would crush the economy{literally}
To actually start working off the debt we need to increase revenues roughly 1.75 times of the current trend{2011 revenues}....paying it off at point 2 trillion a hear ...still taking 80 years.
Such a tax burden will cause job losses at 25500000..thats 25 million {another 16 to 17 percent of what we have now}...which would cause a further burden as we have to support them which means taxes will have to go up again as roughly a fourth of the workforce would be unemployed...More revenues would be needed for them...so its a self compounding problem we can see....to further since that fourth isnt working the remaining workers will have to carry the weight on their taxes..making them pay more taxes again{that additional fourth}.
Socialism..it simply does not work
In 2011 the Federal govt obtained 2.3 trillion{note just enough to cover some entitlements}
We have budgeted 3.8 trillion dollars for 2013...the negotiations are over 1.265 trillion{discretionary spending }which covers everything else that isnt listed above.
As we can see we have a major problem...As revenues are just enough to match mandatory spending.{roughly}
There really isnt alot that can be done with discretionary spending unless we decide on some serious cuts.
Housing help..reduced funding on education,defense and various others agencies etc.
As we can see have a major problem...we would have to make some major cuts in discretionary spending.
Here is a rough breakdown of discretionary spending
Even if we cut defense in half we would save only about 400 billion.
Anyway to fix the problem would take some serious revenue gains...which would crush the economy{literally}
To actually start working off the debt we need to increase revenues roughly 1.75 times of the current trend{2011 revenues}....paying it off at point 2 trillion a hear ...still taking 80 years.
Such a tax burden will cause job losses at 25500000..thats 25 million {another 16 to 17 percent of what we have now}...which would cause a further burden as we have to support them which means taxes will have to go up again as roughly a fourth of the workforce would be unemployed...More revenues would be needed for them...so its a self compounding problem we can see....to further since that fourth isnt working the remaining workers will have to carry the weight on their taxes..making them pay more taxes again{that additional fourth}.
Socialism..it simply does not work
Last edited by a moderator:
Accountable
Well-Known Member
Once again you're getting off-topic. Is the fiscal cliff a fiscal cliff or isn't it?
Accountable
Well-Known Member
I should be a dentist. The hikes and reductions due to be enacted if we "go off" what is collectively called the Fiscal Cliff: In your opinion, would they be generally good for the country? Generally bad? Serious at all?
Alien Allen
Froggy the Prick
if anything I would have called it a step towards fiscal sanity
Accountable
Well-Known Member
I'd like to know the rationale behind the legislation. I mean it passed, so there was bipartisan support.
Alien Allen
Froggy the Prick
I thought it still was up for a house vote ??
Loved what one reader stated. They jumped off a curb and not a cliff.
Loved what one reader stated. They jumped off a curb and not a cliff.
Accountable
Well-Known Member
Sorry. I meant the legislation that established the deadlines, cuts, & tax hikes in the first place.
The pap the Senate passed at 0-dark-30 this morning is catching hell in the House, I'm hearing.
Accountable
Well-Known Member
Whew!! The measure passed the House and is on its way to the Presidents desk. I'll bet he's eager to sign this critical economy-saving bill, right?
President Barack Obama said he would sign the bill into law, but he did not say when. After the vote, he flew to Hawaii to rejoin his wife and daughters on their winter vacation.
President Barack Obama said he would sign the bill into law, but he did not say when. After the vote, he flew to Hawaii to rejoin his wife and daughters on their winter vacation.
Accountable
Well-Known Member
It's a fiction. Artificially created. Artificially hyped. Kabuki at it's best. Meanwhile nobody says shit about the Obamacare taxes that took effect yesterday.
How to forget about a current problem create a new one.
Minor Axis
Well-Known Member
Taxes are bad, period... I know that resonates with some people here.
It isnt that taxes are "bad"...its govt spending keeps increasing ..we cant apply the tax to match the spending.
We need some major reductions in spending.
We cant touch the mandatory spending SS medical benefits etc{which our current revenues covers}
That leaves discretionary spending
You will need to cut about a trillion off above chart to make any headway
Where do you propose to make the cuts on the above chart?
Accountable
Well-Known Member
Taxes are bad. So is charging money for good or services necessary to live. So is asking someone to provide life-saving goods or services without pay. So is government. So is taking advantage of the weak. So is killing animals. So is starving.Taxes are bad, period... I know that resonates with some people here.
etc etc etc etc
Minor Axis
Well-Known Member
My off topic reply...
Our current brand of capitalism in combination with a social conscious does not appear to be working either. As the "haves" become fewer and fewer, the "have-nots" will rise up and cast us down. We get ourselves into this position when we try to help each other, but the limits of our system and our emotions defeat the attempt. The rest of us are more concerned about self enrichment, than team effort. You notion supports the concept we are all glorified cave men, individuals looking out just for ourselves. I don't believe this attitude will carry humanity forward. Human society will never become great until "we" means more than "me". It may not mean you get to become fabulously rich, but what is the point of that?
Kakapo Dundee
Active Member
[h=3]The U.S. Congress sets a federal budget every year in the trillions of dollars. Few people know how much money that is so we created a breakdown of federal spending in simple terms. Let’s put the 2011 federal budget into perspective:[/h][h=3]U.S. income: $2,170,000,000,000
It helps to think about these numbers in terms that we can relate to. Therefore, let’s remove eight zeros from these numbers and pretend this is the household budget for the fictitious Jones family:
[/h]
I'm interested in The Man's claim that 'socialism doesn't work'. Australia, Canada and NZ are all examples of countries that traditionally run bigger social spending programs than the USA, but they're all in much better financial position. China, perhaps the most left-leaning of all the major players, has a government debt equivalent to 48% of GDP, in comparison to the USA's 73%.
Yes, taxes are bad.....but let's be brutally honest, consistently spending more than you raise is worse. The only way forward is to raise taxes AND cut expenditure. Trouble is, doing so at the levels required to make a difference will push the USA over the fiscal cliff and back into recession.
- Federal budget: $3,820,000,000,000
- New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
- National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
- Recent budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000 (about 1 percent of the budget)
It helps to think about these numbers in terms that we can relate to. Therefore, let’s remove eight zeros from these numbers and pretend this is the household budget for the fictitious Jones family:
- Total annual income for the Jones family: $21,700
- Amount of money the Jones family spent: $38,200
- Amount of new debt added to the credit card: $16,500
- Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
- Amount cut from the budget: $385
[/h]
I'm interested in The Man's claim that 'socialism doesn't work'. Australia, Canada and NZ are all examples of countries that traditionally run bigger social spending programs than the USA, but they're all in much better financial position. China, perhaps the most left-leaning of all the major players, has a government debt equivalent to 48% of GDP, in comparison to the USA's 73%.
Yes, taxes are bad.....but let's be brutally honest, consistently spending more than you raise is worse. The only way forward is to raise taxes AND cut expenditure. Trouble is, doing so at the levels required to make a difference will push the USA over the fiscal cliff and back into recession.
Accountable
Well-Known Member
Anyone who has only experienced the US has no real frame of reference concerning "haves and have-nots", especially if they think the terms adequately describe American society. It's as ridiculous as a rich person thinking that taking one of this year's vacations in-country rather than abroad fits the definition of "sacrifice".
It's this lack of perspective that allows Washington to get away with reducing the rate of increasing spending while increasing tax rates and calling it cutbacks.
It's this lack of perspective that allows Washington to get away with reducing the rate of increasing spending while increasing tax rates and calling it cutbacks.
78,874Threads
2,185,387Messages
4,959Members