So, how do conservatives feel about S&P blaming the tea baggers?

[cupocity303]

P.S. to the poster I responded to above.

If you wanna add a little credibility to your ideas, how about instead of proposing Symbolic gestures like euthanasia, because you watched a loved one die. How about instead, at least mentioning/addressing just ONE (just one) of the many Departments of (insert name here). And maybe at least proposing to abolish one of them if not more.

Also, you do know that Social Security isn't really supposed to be part of any Deficit/Debt related issues (although now it is). The revenue that gets generated from from a SS tax isn't supposed to pay down Debts, but put into the Safety Net Insurance Pot, and used to pay the retirees, nothing more. Excluding the other SS programs not related with Old-Age/Retirement, some of which I would support getting rid of, which would free up more money for the retirees who you want working until age 72 because they can.

[Nuurzhaelan]

Thanks for being specific. I always like to move past the invective and ad hominem attacks that so constantly pervade political discussion. I think 60-70% of Americans could agree on something significant if given the right information, especially without all the namecalling that does nothing to help the crisis.

Yes, I'm studying for my CPA, I'm fully aware how the progressive tax system works in this country.

I'm currently doing some research on the proposals you just mentioned (because a lot of them are commonly stated in the msm), so I'll get back to you.

I'm actually tempted to write a white paper sometime, because there's so much disinformation coming from both sides.

-Ending oil company subsidies (I'm guessing you include tax havens as well, not simply federal government money being handed out): $40-45 billion in revenues over 10 years ($4.5b annual savings).

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...account-88-pe/

-Ending corporate tax jet loophole: $30 billion in revenues over ten years ($3b annual savings).

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011...es-special-tax


So your public works program would roughly amount to $75 billion over ten years ($7.5 billion a year). That's relatively small compared to Obama's Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 amounted to $787 billion ($275b of which is tax credits/breaks) with immediate provisions. Relative to aforementioned act, it's not really that massive.

As an aside, I would rather rebuild bridges and roads here rather than bombing/rebuilding them in the Middle East.

Now, let's look at the other suggestions, the Defense one being I could sign on with the most.

-Substantially downsizing military spending: $960 billion in savings over ten years with Frank-Paul proposal ($96 billion avg. annual savings). This includes ending military bases in Germany, Japan, South Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan. Libya numbers not included at the time of this report.
http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/1006SDTFreport.pdf Page 26

-Ending foreign aid: $48 billion in annual savings ($34b economic, $14 military)
http://gbk.eads.usaidallnet.gov/data/fast-facts.html

-End Bush tax cuts/increasing top tax rate to 45%: Pending.

-Negotiate prescription drug prices for Medicare/Medicaid: "The potential annual savings with FSS prices would be $21.9 billion"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2517993/

So, to summarize the savings/revenue increases:
-End oil company subsidies: $4.5 billion per year.
-End corporate tax jet loopholes: $3 billion per year.
-End foreign aid: $48 billion per year.
-Reduce militaristic spending (assuming entirety): $96 billion per year.
-Negotiate Medicare drug prices: $21.9 billion per year.
-End Bush tax cuts, increase rates to 45%: Pending.


I admit this is simplified math, but I don't want to go too indepth.

Total savings/revenues: $173.4b per year.

Unfunded entitlement liabilities: $45t over 75 years ($600b per year). Again, these numbers were established before Obamacare was passed.

So, save Bush tax cuts ended, raise marginal rate to 45%, you have accounted for about 30% of the problem, not including other nondefense discretionary spending (Department of Education, Food and Drug Administration, Interest on Debt, etc.).

Clearly you know a lot more about money and economy than I do.

Your research looks impressive--up to the point where you don't explain how much revenue the bush era tax reductions have cost us, how much ending them now would net us (without so much as even a glib speculation) and that the entitlement liabilities are unfunded. It suggests to me that rescinding bush's tax reductions would have an enormous impact on our revenue problem. As for the entitlement obligations they are unfunded inasmuch as Medicare Prescription D is unfunded. Medicare is funded. Both bush and Gore talked about it, but bush put it into action. I am speculating that Gore might have taxed and funded. bush just put it in without funding it and exacerbated it by his revenue reductions. It is complete conjecture, admittedly, but do you think that the Prescription D program was put in there as for political points as WELL as to funnel money to pharmaceutical corporations?

I was trying to be reasonable with 45% on rich people, but perhaps it should go back to what it was prior to Reagan. Yes, I like that.

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/s...ush-tax-cuts-/

It reads basically, that we need to completely end the bush era tax reductions--for everyone. I agree with this.

I cannot claim to have all the answers, and clearly I have a lot to learn. But before we the poor are asked to sacrifice more, the rich should start sacrificing--and start sacrificing now.

[Nuurzhaelan]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...te-profits-ar/

So, like, WHY do corporations need tax reduction extensions and why are they not hiring?

[Chew BackAtacha]

P.S. to the poster I responded to above.

If you wanna add a little credibility to your ideas, how about instead of proposing Symbolic gestures like euthanasia, because you watched a loved one die. How about instead, at least mentioning/addressing just ONE (just one) of the many Departments of (insert name here). And maybe at least proposing to abolish one of them if not more.

Also, you do know that Social Security isn't really supposed to be part of any Deficit/Debt related issues (although now it is). The revenue that gets generated from from a SS tax isn't supposed to pay down Debts, but put into the Safety Net Insurance Pot, and used to pay the retirees, nothing more. Excluding the other SS programs not related with Old-Age/Retirement, some of which I would support getting rid of, which would free up more money for the retirees who you want working until age 72 because they can.

you've contradicted yourself here, completely, look at the link i provided. you didn't even read it did you? my sources are the finance department at CNN, wheres your sources? Your last paragraph doesn't even make sense

the 3 reasons the country is in debt - Military. Social Security. Medicare

EVERYTHING ELSE DOES NOT MATTER. WHAT ARE YOU PROPOSING THE GOVERNMENT CUTS? NASA? LOL. GET THE **** OUT OF HERE, ''POSTER ABOVE ME''. OTHER DEPARTMENTS ARE POCKET CHANGE.

you cut these 3 areas, or you don't save money

im aware of where the money goes for SS tax thank you. but that pots not going to be big enough, in fact its not big enough just now (bizarre really, you told me that and then you ripped me for mentioning it?)

funny how you didn't mention anything. no suggestions, no alternatives, just finger waving, air, and rhetoric

[Chew BackAtacha]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...te-profits-ar/

So, like, WHY do corporations need tax reduction extensions and why are they not hiring?

i could give a million reasons but -

they are just greedy bastards. These guys are ruining the country. And the politicians are in their back pocket, along with the Banks

http://thetruthpursuit.com/focus/foc...-need-tax-cuts

One would think that an almost daily barrage of grim economic news about working America might inspire a sense of urgency among policymakers, prompting them to think boldly about how to get the country moving again.

Meanwhile, the companies in the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index are sitting on a record $960 billion in cash -- the Wall Street Journalnotes that "there is a cash crisis in corporate America—although it comes not from a shortage of the stuff, but from a surplus." Given that the federal government has been collecting the lowest share of the economy in tax revenues since 1950 during the past few years, one might also expect that giving American businesses more "tax relief" wouldn't be a terribly high priority.

But this is America, and the White House is reportedly courting big Wall Street donors to help finance Obama's re-election campaign, so it's considering the merits of offering a temporary cut in the payroll tax paid by businesses. It's an idea that might stimulate the economy a little bit and could well gain bipartisan support, but it's also fraught with risk and represents yet another sign that the administration has thrown in the towel in the larger debate over how to recover from a blistering recession.

The payroll tax finances Social Security and Medicare. It's divided evenly between employers and workers – each pay 6.2 percent. Last December, Obama cut a deal with the Republicans to give workers a break in 2011 – we're paying 4.2 percent this year – which put a few more dollars in people's pockets.

Businesses want a piece of the action as well. According to the Wall Street Journal, “For years, small-business advocacy groups have called for a payroll tax holiday for employers... The National Federation of Independent Business, a lobbying group in Washington, D.C., has been a vocal proponent” of the cut. So, there's a good chance of getting some GOP support for the measure.

No details have been released, and Bloomberg reports that the idea is “one of several” the White House is kicking around. Presumably, it would be a short-term measure like the employee-side tax break passed last year. “A cut in the employer side of the payroll tax could absolutely help accelerate job creation,” Christine Romer, the former chair of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, told Bloomberg. “In addition to the usual beneficial effect on demand, this tax cut would make hiring less expensive.”

And that's where the rationale goes off-track. The biggest problem facing the economy remains consumers' lack of appetite for spending money – lack of money to spend is a better way of putting it – and the employee-side break addressed that problem to a small degree. But businesses are sitting on tons of cash right now – corporate profits are at an all-time high. They're not hiring in this country because they don't see a lot of customers breaking down their doors to buy their goods and services. Instead, they're giving investors fatter dividends, buying up smaller firms and investing in their overseas operations – American multinationals are creating plenty of jobs abroad.

[Ta Khent]

Aren't S&P those same idiots that gave AAA ratings to those now worthless mortgage-back securities some years ago? Why are these clowns taken seriously?

[vercingetorix3]

Clearly you know a lot more about money and economy than I do.

Your research looks impressive--up to the point where you don't explain how much revenue the bush era tax reductions have cost us, how much ending them now would net us (without so much as even a glib speculation) and that the entitlement liabilities are unfunded. It suggests to me that rescinding bush's tax reductions would have an enormous impact on our revenue problem. As for the entitlement obligations they are unfunded inasmuch as Medicare Prescription D is unfunded. Medicare is funded. Both bush and Gore talked about it, but bush put it into action. I am speculating that Gore might have taxed and funded. bush just put it in without funding it and exacerbated it by his revenue reductions. It is complete conjecture, admittedly, but do you think that the Prescription D program was put in there as for political points as WELL as to funnel money to pharmaceutical corporations?

I was trying to be reasonable with 45% on rich people, but perhaps it should go back to what it was prior to Reagan. Yes, I like that.

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/s...ush-tax-cuts-/

It reads basically, that we need to completely end the bush era tax reductions--for everyone. I agree with this.

I cannot claim to have all the answers, and clearly I have a lot to learn. But before we the poor are asked to sacrifice more, the rich should start sacrificing--and start sacrificing now.

Thank you for your analysis and kind words. The only reason why I didn't include the Bush tax cuts is because I didn't know how to calculate the net effect of increase the rate from 35% to 45%, accounting for projected economic growth. The models must be horrible to create.

But going by CBO numbers, ending the Bush tax cuts (aka going back from 35% to 39.6%) would create $2.65 trillion over 10 years ($265b per year).

So, ceteris paribus, you would eliminate about 73% of the unfunded liabilities problem, not including existing debt (~$14 trillion), nondefense discretionary spending projections, interest on existing debt, etc. If you include existing debt, that number drops to about 55%.

Adjusting it to Reagan rates (from 35% to 50%) would raise revenues theoretically, but my question is what kinds of deductions and credits existed then (i.e. did corporations effectively and officially pay that rate in those days?).

My only concern would be that raising taxes would stifle economic growth by:
-discouraging domestic firms to invest/hire,
-creating offshore subsidiaries to hide earnings from taxes,
-encourage the size of government,
-discourage foreign investment, etc.

But to answer your question, yes I think Prescription D it was totally politically-motivated. Bush knew that he would be in a close race with Al Gore, so he had to offer the old people (who consistently show up to vote the most) something to win. It was wrong politically and goes against conservative values, but there you go.

I would disagree with your premise that Medicare is funded, it's paying out more than it takes in ever since around 2003, if memory serves.

But to help pharmaceutical corporations, I don't know. I haven't looked at the legislation in its entirety, but I'm sure there are provisions in there that would satisfy a few of his corporate donors.

But I would agree that the poor who have come to depend on these programs shouldn't be thrown out on the street. You can cut other things like the military (end foreign adventures around the world, end Cold War weapons based systems). But you need to drastically reform entitlements like means testing (if you make more than $250,000, you're not getting anything), raising the retirement age gradually (retirees are living longer and there are fewer workers to pay into the system), and giving young people like you and me the chance to opt out (e.g. we pay 10% into the system in exchange for opting out).

But overall, I think there's room for compromise. Those would are the government payroll (military contractor companies, banks who received corporate welfare) should be taxed more because they're not creating true growth.

So, like, WHY do corporations need tax reduction extensions and why are they not hiring?

Again, theoretically to promote job creation, innovation, create a more business-friendly environment, free up capital, etc.

Corporate income tax is double taxation (you tax the corporation as a separate entity from its owners), then you tax the earnings passed out (aka dividends).

But as to why they're not hiring at a good enough rate, that's a more complicated question. I think it's partially because the public sector gets in the way with overbearing regulations like Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley. Combine that with a high corporate income tax rate, and there you go.

BTW, I love Politifact. It hammers both Dems and Repubs for their lies.

[vercingetorix3]

I wouldn't just raise taxes, i'd create new ones, especially on drugs, the revenue you would bring in would be astronomical. I would also tax GUNS, much in the same way they tax cars for road tax, as guns cause crime. 1 gun per household is OK. Its in the constitution. Any more, you will be taxed.

taxes on the top 5% to be raised to 1960 levels temporarily for 4 years, with potential tax breaks/refunds once the country is operating on a surplus (so that money is still in cash flow) that's the main argument with taxes, if you tax people, they will have less disposable income. BUT, we've tried it that way for 40 years, it didn't work, lets try it this way, taxes ENSURE the government receives the revenue

military spending should be halved, id withdraw from Iraq and mostly from Afghanistan, withdraw/reserve half the troops from Germany/Japan etc, they have no real use, a lot of these troops are not career soldiers anyway, they are just trying to save money for college.

I'd raise the working age by 5 years, people are living longer and they should be working longer, just the way it is, which will decrease the total spent on social security. THIS IS INEVITABLE. the is where all the money is going to. THE WORKING AGE MUST BE RAISED. Impossible for a party to be elected with this policy however

I would endorse euthanasia, speaking as someone who recently watched his grandfather wither away into nothing due to Alzheimer's i would make it clear - increase stem cell research or let these people die, they money to be saved on looking after people who are already the living dead would be billions. Invest in research and find cures and save money. I personally would not want to live in those circumstances without a cure, it is zombiefication

Invest in electric cars grids, like they have done in Israel, build nuclear power plants in stable, geological environments, which are often the places that need jobs like Detriot, thus cutting foreign oil independence. Everybody talks about an alternative power source - YOU ****ing have it. Albert Einstein and Nicola Tessla made it possible. Just make it safer, easily done.

1 time windfall tax on companies who operate in the USA but manufacture goods overseas, thus biting the hand that's feeds you. In return, offer to lower corporation tax by 5%, meaning they will save money in the long term, but giving the economy much needed cash flow and the money can be spent on infrastructure. You will never get these companies to employ people in this country again, the genie is out the bottle, so take advantage of the fact that they have to operate in the number one market in the world and tax them 1 time for the privilege

that's balanced, cuts on spending, raising revenue. Will that be popular? NO. but it would cut the deficit withing two terms

I would agree with raising the retirement age and cutting defense (militarism is a more accurate word) spending.

I don't agree with euthanasia, but I do think families need to address end of life issues (e.g. Grandma is 92 and dying, does she really need a kidney transplant that will cost hundreds of thousands and will extend her life by 2 months?). My Grandfather went through a similar ordeal with cancer before he passed.

Do you have specific numbers for any of these ideas?

A lot of them sound good, but do they effectively tackle the $45,000,000,000,000 in unfunded entitlement liabilities over 75 years, $14,000,000,000,000 in current debt, unknown billions in spending due to interest on the debt, nondefense discretionary spending, etc.

[cupocity303]

funny how you didn't mention anything. no suggestions, no alternatives, just finger waving, air, and rhetoric

Here is an alternative, the equivalent to your proposal. Difference is, one of us is being facetious, while the other is actually serious:

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...ight=Fire+Dept

[Nuurzhaelan]

BTW, I love Politifact. It hammers both Dems and Repubs for their lies.

Yeah, I am going to go to that site a lot now. I want to know the facts, not propaganda. Thanks for that.