03-12-2013 09:21 AM
28 12
tools
  1. droidmyme's Avatar
    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/02/22...e-to-go-up.xml

    Seems to be a reasonable analysis.

    Sent from my LS670 using Android Central Forums
    02-21-2013 08:54 PM
  2. Aquila's Avatar
    Here is my policy (opinion): We raise enough revenue, as fairly as possible, to cover what we already spent. Going forward, we don't spend a dime on anything unless we know exactly how it's being paid for without borrowing. The revenue increase should also be at least .01% higher than expenses, so that "net" profit can be accumulated towards paying down the principle on the debt.
    03-03-2013 10:05 AM
  3. backbeat's Avatar
    Here is my policy (opinion): We raise enough revenue, as fairly as possible, to cover what we already spent. Going forward, we don't spend a dime on anything unless we know exactly how it's being paid for without borrowing. The revenue increase should also be at least .01% higher than expenses, so that "net" profit can be accumulated towards paying down the principle on the debt.
    The record indicates that you may want to reconsider that position. This graphic also includes the record-setting FY09 budget which was GWBush's. We were 4 months into that budget when Obama was sworn in the first time.



    Also, how does the financing of 2+ global hot wars - while simultaneously cutting taxes, primarily for the top 1% - help stabilize an economy over time? How many private sector jobs were created by slashing taxes over almost 8 years? GooseEgg! In other words. do you seriously believe economies exist in suspended animation as you are suggesting?
    03-03-2013 10:57 AM
  4. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    The record indicates that you may want to reconsider that position. This graphic also includes the record-setting FY09 budget which was GWBush's. We were 4 months into that budget when Obama was sworn in the first time.

    http://blogs-images.forbes.com/ricku...63312_ME11.jpg

    Also, how does the financing of 2+ global hot wars - while simultaneously cutting taxes, primarily for the top 1% - help stabilize an economy over time? How many private sector jobs were created by slashing taxes over almost 8 years? GooseEgg! In other words. do you seriously believe economies exist in suspended animation as you are suggesting?
    I think you misread his reply. He's ok with a revenue increase if it's needed to cover what we've spent.

    I had to read it a few times too.
    03-03-2013 02:38 PM
  5. backbeat's Avatar
    I think you misread his reply. He's ok with a revenue increase if it's needed to cover what we've spent.

    I had to read it a few times too.
    Fluidity of our economy runs counter to the snapshot view-perspective NIT was expressing. That is what I was responding and adding to.
    03-03-2013 02:45 PM
  6. Aquila's Avatar
    I'm suggesting massively increasing revenue to counteract the current deficient, getting us up to a profit, even if it's slim, then not authorizing spending bills that do not include specifically how they will be paid for. I'm also saying we stop borrowing our own money from the Fed at interest. I think we can spend as much as we want as long as we include the means to pay for it. That's why a "debt ceiling" is ridiculous if we don't also include a limit to what Congress can authorize.

    For example, if we as a nation decide we're going to fully fund universal education and make it the best in the world, I'm all for it, but we shouldn't borrow from anyone to do it, it should come from cuts to bloat and/or revenue increases. We have to remember that government spending, while hugely excessive, is integrated with our economy in such a way that any arbitrary spending cuts actually hurt our revenue stream by lowering commerce levels and the income levels of the populace. Tax cuts and/or spending cuts will never create jobs.

    There is a lot of waste that can be cut out of the government, but with all of the focus on cutting programs like social security, healthcare and benefits for veterans, it's apparent that none in congress apparently know what drives our budget or our economy. In my opinion we can spend far less (ie approximately 10-20% of the entire budget) by simple cuts to excess spending in defense and healthcare, without hurting any citizens or compromising our security in any way. The only difference would be how much money we throw at corporations that 1st exploit our inability to properly negotiate prices and terms and then 2nd exploit the tax codes to minimize the revenue they contribute.
    03-03-2013 06:02 PM
  7. Aquila's Avatar
    For example, if our current revenue was $80 and our expenses $100, I'm saying bring our revenue to $101 then over time try to intelligently bring both down to $80, etc. Do this enough years in a row and we get a surplus similar to that which Clinton left Gore and Bush to debate the use of, prior to Bush blowing it all on useless tax cuts and wars that we should not have been in nor ever defined a method of payment for. As far as I am aware, to date, congress has still not authorized war in Iraq or Afghanistan.
    03-03-2013 06:07 PM
  8. Aquila's Avatar
    I'm especially annoyed with congress's consistent pattern of cutting benefits for veterans. Many people join the military for different reasons, but many many poorer Americans join for reasons that include the benefits, such as GI, healthcare and how it fits into one's resume. If we want to cut future benefits to future soldiers and veterans, fine, whatever, I disagree but at least they'll know what they're getting in advance. Current soldiers and veterans should receive no less than what they were promised when taking the Oath. We already severely underpay enlisted personnel, and that was always justified by the lifetime benefits package during and following service. No soldier should exit their service worse off than someone who is transitioning from one private sector position to another.
    03-03-2013 06:20 PM
  9. Mooncatt's Avatar
    We have to remember that government spending, while hugely excessive, is integrated with our economy in such a way that any arbitrary spending cuts actually hurt our revenue stream by lowering commerce levels and the income levels of the populace. Tax cuts and/or spending cuts will never create jobs.
    Care to elaborate on your reasons for thinking this?

    I agree that government spending is ingrained in our economy, but my counter point is why should it be? I'm of the belief that government, regardless of party control and governing style, is very inefficient. They don't have to deal with competition in a normal marketplace, and there are tactics like no-bid contracts that promote lack of cost controls. And how many times do we hear about excessive parties, vacations, etc that accomplish nothing but are funded by us? So I say the government should have as little to do with the economy as possible to minimize disruptions.

    I'm also curious why you think tax and spending cuts don't create jobs. Every time I hear a business owner talk about this, I hear the exact opposite. It's the excessive spending driving higher tax rates that are keeping them from hiring new workers, expanding, and offering raises. I've thought about moving into having my own business as well, and one of the things making me wait is ever increasing government regulation that would increase my compliance costs significantly and likely to lower my income potential. Lower taxes allows businesses to invest more and pay more, which boosts consumer spending in place of government spending.

    I'm also in agreement that the government should spend no more than they take in and work on paying down our debts, but I don't think they should be able to spend on anything that they can also pay for. Because of the excessive spending I already mentioned, they don't have my trust. They want me to pay more taxes? They will have to get on a budget where they spend less than they take in on a consistent basis to prove to me they have their act straight. Then maybe I'll consider paying more.

    Yes, it'll hurt for a bit, but we will be far better off in the end. Reduced spending on government projects and lack of debt payments allow for lower taxes that spur the job market. More people employed means more tax revenues and less demand for the various welfare programs. That then allows for even more tax cuts, and on and on until a new happy medium is achieved with high employment and low taxes.
    Aquila likes this.
    03-04-2013 06:11 AM
  10. Aquila's Avatar
    I agree with most of what you just said, in that we do not have a track record of being smart with money and there is a huge lack of trust. Any future that is sustainable will need optimization, integrity and transparency.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
    03-04-2013 06:50 AM
  11. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Any future that is sustainable will need optimization, integrity and transparency.
    Spoken like a true politician. When are you planning to run for office?
    Aquila likes this.
    03-04-2013 07:09 AM
  12. Aquila's Avatar
    Spoken like a true politician. When are you planning to run for office?
    I have enough offices, thinking about politics is a very part time hobby. I'm more interested in the history and philosophy than the day to day soap opera. .

    Seriously though, I agree we should and must mitigate against waste. I'm fearful of doing so too quickly and/or not wisely, because of the risks of collapse and even more corruption. I'm also not opposed to any project that the People agree to, but currently lobbies make it nearly impossible to pass any pure origin without riders and handouts to insiders and special interest groups.

    It's culturally and systemically broken, and requires the help of the People to change course.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
    03-04-2013 07:23 AM
  13. backbeat's Avatar
    It's culturally and systemically broken, and requires the help of the People to change course.
    Isn't that the mantra of the baggers (and every other astroturf pied-piper this nation has ever known)?
    03-04-2013 07:29 AM
  14. Aquila's Avatar
    Isn't that the mantra of the baggers (and every other astroturf pied-piper this nation has ever known)?
    That's probably the appeal, but they don't act on those principles, they speak of liberty and small government while supporting massive corporate handouts and promoting an agenda of fear, hatred and crushing progress. Its easy for them to say the right things to the camera then promote racism, homophobia and their hatred of women and the poor every time they think the cameras are off. How many times were they caught with their pants down when they forgot about cameras and the internet? Once caught, they chose to double down, which allows us to see them for the bigoted cowards they are, ruled by fear of their neighbors and mythology.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
    03-04-2013 07:39 AM
  15. Mooncatt's Avatar
    The Occupiers are just as guilty.

    Personally I'm a Fair Tax guy. That would make things simple, efficient, kill handouts and lobbyists manipulating the tax system, and make us one of the most competitive countries in the world for businesses.
    cdmjlt369 likes this.
    03-04-2013 07:49 AM
  16. backbeat's Avatar
    The Occupiers are just as guilty.
    I didn't realize Occupiers were organized by **** Armey's (R-TX) Freedom Works while funded by the Koch Bros. My bad.
    msndrstood likes this.
    03-04-2013 08:00 AM
  17. Mooncatt's Avatar
    I didn't realize Occupiers were organized by **** Armey's (R-TX) Freedom Works while funded by the Koch Bros. My bad.
    The OWS movement has its own left wing backers and organizers. The point of bringing them up was that you have crazies on all sides, so no use bringing any up in a debate such as this.
    03-04-2013 09:20 AM
  18. backbeat's Avatar
    The OWS movement has its own left wing backers and organizers. The point of bringing them up was that you have crazies on all sides, so no use bringing any up in a debate such as this.
    A distinction without a difference. And all with consciousness know it.
    03-04-2013 09:44 AM
  19. Mooncatt's Avatar
    A distinction without a difference. And all with consciousness know it.
    Then why did you bring up the Tea Party if it is just a "distinction without a difference?"
    03-04-2013 10:12 AM
  20. backbeat's Avatar
    Then why did you bring up the Tea Party if it is just a "distinction without a difference?"
    Fatally-flawed foundation and a misdirection. Keep swingin'.
    03-04-2013 10:54 AM
  21. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Your dodge speaks volumes.
    03-04-2013 06:02 PM
  22. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    The Occupiers are just as guilty.

    Personally I'm a Fair Tax guy. That would make things simple, efficient, kill handouts and lobbyists manipulating the tax system, and make us one of the most competitive countries in the world for businesses.
    I'm A fair tax guy too. Imagine getting to decide where your whole paycheck goes. Its also the only way EVERYONE will pay taxes.

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Android Central Forums
    03-04-2013 06:11 PM
  23. backbeat's Avatar
    Your dodge speaks volumes.
    Actually, to be taken in context and to point out what should be painfully obvious, "a distinction without a difference" is when a comparison is made and demonstrates that although on the surface similarities appear to exist, they vanish when scratched just beneath the surface. Therefore, your statement "Then why did you bring up the Tea Party if it is just a "distinction without a difference?" makes no logical sense.
    03-04-2013 06:20 PM
  24. Aquila's Avatar
    I'm A fair tax guy too. Imagine getting to decide where your whole paycheck goes. Its also the only way EVERYONE will pay taxes.

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Android Central Forums
    I don't really get the fair tax thing (have only seen a couple of video's that reference it) I don't know enough about it, but it seems like the easiest way to avoid paying taxes is to just put the money in savings. Therefore, a minimal amount of the richest's income is taxed, while most american's will be taxed on 90-100% of their income (depending on savings habits).
    03-04-2013 06:21 PM
  25. Mooncatt's Avatar
    It's been a while since I listened to the Fair Tax audio book by Neal Bortz (also in print), so I'm not quite as up on it as I was. Though, basically, essentials are not taxed, nor are second hand goods (clothing, cars, etc), plus everyone gets a prebate check monthly to offset the minimal taxes needed to simply survive without luxury. So actually in terms of percentages, the lower classes pay less/none of their income in taxes because they are more apt to buy used goods and basic necessities without many excesses. Yes, the rich could sock all their money away in savings (and everyone should have a good savings), but then they have nothing to show for it. They will still be spending money on lavish goods to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

    I've been meaning to listen to that book again, now that I think about it.
    03-04-2013 06:46 PM
28 12

Similar Threads

  1. So sad - have to give up CM10 and go back to CM9, my phone can't handle it :(
    By 6tr6tr in forum Sprint Nexus S 4G Rooting, ROMs, and Hacks
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-22-2012, 12:19 PM
  2. Why buy Docs To Go When Have Adobe Reader?
    By Chrisy in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-14-2012, 10:55 AM
  3. Why so slow to go back to home screen?
    By PauByrd08 in forum HTC EVO Shift 4G
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-14-2011, 04:58 PM
  4. Do I have to go back to my Evo? My NS4G has no service at all.
    By Linkchomp in forum Sprint Nexus S 4G
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-29-2011, 01:36 AM
  5. Thunderbolt HTC ads starting to go up!
    By wes008 in forum Verizon HTC Thunderbolt
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-12-2011, 12:20 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD