National Deficit

Resolved:

Federal tax revenues should immediately be increased to a level sufficient to cover expenditures and eliminate the deficit.

My arguement would be that by taking this step first, we as a people could then have an honest conversation about our values and what/where we need to make spending cuts.

(my inagural post)

I agree on raising them to eliminate the deficit, but I would disagree on covering expenditures, instead reducing the expenditures themselves.

Hey Doc! Welcome! I guess I will say this before Joel has a chance to jump on you, but you might want to head over to the Introductions page and, well, introduce yourself! Also, take a look at the signature post as well....

Also, I am not totally sure I like the idea of giving the government even more money just to get started...they don't usually like lowering their expectations and budgets...at least based on my experience working for Them...yes I capitalized Them.

I don't like it either, bu two points: 1.) Entitlements are severely underpaid for what people receive out of them, so either everyone (not just rich people) needs to pay more, or the services provided by entitlements must be reduced. 2.) The Federal Debt is so extremely massive that the only way to bring it down will be to raise taxes on everyone. Just rich people alone or corporations can't cover the entire cost, so we have to suck it up and pull a Dave Ramsey to get this debt down. Ah, I almost just forgot, we need a balanced budget amendment.

`

drainey wrote:There is a fascinating budget puzzle over at http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html
It's evenhanded and you can balance the budget, from whatever part of the political spectrum you are in. The problem is that the 80 to 120 million people who voted in the last two elections aren't allowed to do much more than choose from extremely limited choices given to them.
I believe there has to be a better way for the public to exert pressure on their representatives.

I think this is somewhat the nature of the beast with a Constitutional Republic. The limited choices that is. I think the only real alternative that gives "the people" more of a direct say would be a form of government that looks closer to a direct democracy. <----- yuck!
Checking out the link now. Ill let you know when Ive got all this budget mess worked out.

ericlawmd wrote:Resolved:

Federal tax revenues should immediately be increased to a level sufficient to cover expenditures and eliminate the deficit.

My arguement would be that by taking this step first, we as a people could then have an honest conversation about our values and what/where we need to make spending cuts.

(my inagural post)

To the OP: I think the same effect could be achieved by simply passing a balanced budget amendment and forcing cuts in spending.

I do like the approach your taking on making the psychological impact. The argument being once people really start hurting we will have to talk about what to cut. Unfortunately we would collapse our economy in the process by practically doubling the tax burden (yes we spend almost twice as much as we take in). My counter proposal to reach said psychological effect is not to hurt people more to get them to realize how much we actually do pay in taxes but instead ban all tax withholding from paychecks. This is somewhat tongue in cheek, but if people had to actually write out a check or actually go online and make a tax payment as opposed to having it taken from their check there would likely be a tax revolt in our country.

drainey wrote:There is a fascinating budget puzzle over at http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html
It's evenhanded and you can balance the budget, from whatever part of the political spectrum you are in. The problem is that the 80 to 120 million people who voted in the last two elections aren't allowed to do much more than choose from extremely limited choices given to them.
I believe there has to be a better way for the public to exert pressure on their representatives.

My solution to the deficit

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=rs5ph011

(although this is an extremely cool tool it is a little limited in options, very fun though and it makes you think)

ericlawmd wrote:Resolved:

Federal tax revenues should immediately be increased to a level sufficient to cover expenditures and eliminate the deficit.

My arguement would be that by taking this step first, we as a people could then have an honest conversation about our values and what/where we need to make spending cuts.

(my inagural post)

Welcome to the boards, btw!
Oh and I found you a new pair of UNDERWEAR!

Joel, I love you as a brother in Christ.

XianSmitherman wrote:Joel, I love you as a brother in Christ.

And I, you. Although I admit in this context the comment does confuse me.

`

drainey wrote:Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, the bank tax? Everything is else is by the libertarian script. I though you would at least cut military spending.

Well yeah, I kinda had to work with the options presented. I didn't see choices like "Eliminate the Dept of Education".

As far as the bank tax, well lets just call it bail out insurance. If we could create a climate in which banks understood they were on their own and had no hopes of bail outs then this tax would be eliminated.

And I did make two military cuts.
1-Reduce noncombat military compensation and overhead
2-Reduce the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 30,000 by 2013

Now, lets see Mr. Rainey's solution!!
also, since you don't have an avatar yet how about the underwear pic I linked to ericlawmd for your selection.

`

NYT; DR

XianSmitherman wrote:NYT; DR

What does this mean?

new york times; didn't read

`

drainey wrote:BL;DNW

Ok, Ill bite...

`