POLITICAL THREAD

[Deeeefense]

I am for less government spending before raising more taxes. The current tax level should be enough to cover current spending. I would start by going after the billions wasted on government programs. Medicaid/Medicare alone account for $50-$60 Billion in fraud every year according to the FBI. That's 10% of the current deficit right there. Get rid of all the social security disability cheats and you nearly fix the revenue shortfall in that program. Government pensions and benefits are much higher than the private sector. Those need to be brought to market levels. Get rid of wasteful military spending on those programs that the pentagon doesn't even want but that congress force onto them. These are just a few examples of spending cuts.

Yes, I want some but not all of the 50% who are not paying income tax to contribute a little more in tax. We need more people with skin in the game. I especially want people who make a living doing illegal things like prostitution, drug dealing, illegal gambling, etc. to pay into the system. Those people don't file tax returns. The best way to do this would be a change in our tax system. I would reduce the income tax rates and apply it to only the top 10%-15% of taxpayers. Then I would add a national sales tax (like Europe's VAT) to make up for the lost revenue. Tax consumption more and earnings less. A national sales tax is also much harder to cheat than our current system so you gain extra revenue from less cheating. Food, clothing and shelter would be exempt from the tax (that is where the poor spend almost all their money). This would keep the system from being regressive. At least that's one idea.

I agree with a lot of this, but as I said above we could probably get close to a balanced budget and even a surplus, on the revenue side by simply reforming the 70,000 page tax code to get ride of a lot of the exclusions, loop holes and corporate welfare, without having to initiate any new forms of taxation, or increases. However there are some good arguments for abolishing the federal income tax and replacing it with a VAT or national sales tax.

One thing I disagree with is that the bottom 50% don't pay taxes. They may not pay federal income taxes but if you add up the taxes they do pay including payroll taxes, sales tax, excise tax, fuel tax etc., they pay a larger portion of their income to the government that any other group.

 

[warrior-cat]

Every respected organization and committee that has looked at the problem of deficit spending and the mounting federal debt, including the most famous one, the bipartisan Simpson/Bowles commission, has concluded that deficits cannot be eliminated, and the debt cannot be reduced without BOTH spending cuts and additional revenue.

A comprehensive bill to achieve both is what is needed. The revenue part can probably be accomplished through tax reform without raising individual rates on the vast majority. You can either support that, or by default you elect to stay on the current course which is a ticking time bomb.

The most glaring ticking time bomb is out of control spending. Under our current administration and those who run congress, please tell me which people (give names) would actually try to control spending and not add to our current debt. Don't give me this crap about needing to tax more until we can get fiscally responsible people in office who would actually cut spending to start to tackle the problem. Generating more revenue (raising Taxes) is not the answer until we start showing restraint.

 

[qwesley]

Jesus H. Christ....did deeeee just reference Bowles Simpson and its 4/1 cuts to taxes ratio? He defended Obama in 2012 when he refused even a 1/1 ratio from Boehner when the tax increase was passed. He defended Obama as he tried to scare people about the doom impact of the sequestration. He backed Obama when he has done everything he can do to repeal the sequestration, the only time this admin has remotely been involved spending cuts.

Dude is batshit crazy.

 

[qwesley]

I would be happy to get that 50% to net zero on federal income taxes ratio that the redistribution that occurs via the EIT credit.

 

[DSmith21]

I agree with a lot of this, but as I said above we could probably get close to a balanced budget and even a surplus, on the revenue side by simply reforming the 70,000 page tax code to get ride of a lot of the exclusions, loop holes and corporate welfare, without having to initiate any new forms of taxation, or increases. However there are some good arguments for abolishing the federal income tax and replacing it with a VAT or national sales tax.

One thing I disagree with is that the bottom 50% don't pay taxes. They may not pay federal income taxes but if you add up the taxes they do pay including payroll taxes, sales tax, excise tax, fuel tax etc., they pay a larger portion of their income to the government that any other group.

I didn't say that the bottom 50% don't pay tax. I said that they didn't pay income tax. We were discussing federal taxation not state and local taxes. I agree that some of those taxes are regressive.

 

[Deeeefense]

No, I am not saying that increased tax revenue should go to new social programs. Heck, we can't even afford the programs already in place. The President sold them as a way to help the poor and reduce income inequality. I only point out that his policies are not achieving his stated objectives.

As for deficit reduction, you have bought into the Obama half truth on that. The deficits did drop after 2011 but only because the massive stimulus spending went away. Obama's deficits are still larger than Bush's. They are just lower than the record deficits team Obama set in his first three years in office.

Your chart stops at 2011. If you look at the subsequent years the deficit continued to go down and for 2014 was reduced to $486 Billion which is in line with per-recession numbers. Of course that's not where we want to be, by any stretch, but considering the severity of the great recession it's not bad. Trying to reduce deficits while stimulating the economy is a no-win scenario.

 

[P19978]

Related to above comments: you should not have the right to vote if you do not pay federal income tax.

This change would correct a whole bunch of spending issues.

 

[warrior-cat]

Your chart stops at 2011. If you look at the subsequent years the deficit continued to go down and for 2014 was reduced to $486 Billion which is in line with per-recession numbers. Of course that's not where we want to be, by any stretch, but considering the severity of the great recession it's not bad. Trying to reduce deficits while stimulating the economy is a no-win scenario.

It can be done but it would mean alienating your voter base. Cuts need to be made on a broad scale, from military spending (not military size) to government subsidies/handouts. Hard decisions will alienate many but, would actually do the job. Once put into place, taxes could then be added with a stipulation (law) to automatically be reduced upon reaching a certain goal. You do not like it as a politician, we will vote you out.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

It can be done but it would mean alienating your voter base. Cuts need to be made on a broad scale, from military spending (not military size) to government subsidies/handouts. Hard decisions will alienate many but, would actually do the job. Once put into place, taxes could then be added with a stipulation (law) to automatically be reduced upon reaching a certain goal. You do not like it as a politician, we will vote you out.

And this is why it will never happen. The left want to keep gigantic handouts. The right want to keep insane military spending. This is all dictated by voter base, and the career politicians fear of being voted out.

The only solution that allows everyone to pander to their base, guaranteeing best reelection odds? Increase revenue, but blame it on the other party. Works like a charm.

If they cared the least bit about the future of this country, theyd come together and easily eliminate tons of unnecessary spending in both handouts and military; along with moderate tax increases across the board. But theyd all be virtually guaranteed to be looking for jobs come next term. That's why itll never happen.

 

[qwesley]

And its set to start increasing again in 17-18 as boomers hit. Benchmarking against the bottom and calling a $500b deficit a cut is epitome of disingenuous..

 

[wkycatfan]

And this is why we need to term limits for the house and the senate, and (1) 6 year term for president. Maybe they would attempt to do things for the good of the country every once in a while as opposed to self preservation.

 

[qwesley]

Reminder, it has only been a couple of days since deeee supported the federal program to go into cities and help people buy into neighborhoods generally not affordable to them.

 

[jamo0001]

Just watched the extended Bernie interview by Couric.

He's got some daggers for Hillary.

 

[qwesley]

"Never let a tragedy go to waste" - Rahm

The Hill ‏@thehill 39m39 minutes ago
Senators unveil $9 billion Amtrak bill in wake of deadly crash: http://hill.cm/ih1EDMu

 

[warrior-cat]

And this is why it will never happen. The left want to keep gigantic handouts. The right want to keep insane military spending. This is all dictated by voter base, and the career politicians fear of being voted out.

The only solution that allows everyone to pander to their base, guaranteeing best reelection odds? Increase revenue, but blame it on the other party. Works like a charm.

If they cared the least bit about the future of this country, theyd come together and easily eliminate tons of unnecessary spending in both handouts and military; along with moderate tax increases across the board. But theyd all be virtually guaranteed to be looking for jobs come next term. That's why itll never happen.

I think that if you keep the size of the military the same but cut the cost of defense spending (trust me, it can be done) then many republicans would get on board. Where you would have the biggest obstacle is with the left cutting spending for subsidies/handouts. A big portion of their voting base is people who think we should pay for their houses/college/phones etc....also, all of the money spent on pork and green companies (we are about to give billions more) that go belly up or are going bankrupt. There are many other areas that if the congress would sit down and work it out instead of being on vacation half of the time, could actually make some progress towards cutting into the debt.

 

[wkycatfan]

"Never let a tragedy go to waste" - Rahm

The Hill ‏@thehill 39m39 minutes ago
Senators unveil $9 billion Amtrak bill in wake of deadly crash: http://hill.cm/ih1EDMu

I thought this was deemed the fault of the engineer......... does he get the $9 million?

 

[bigblueinsanity]

I think that if you keep the size of the military the same but cut the cost of defense spending (trust me, it can be done)

Dont doubt that a bit. Im sure its incredibly bloated, like any other branch of government.

 

[jamo0001]

I thought this was deemed the fault of the engineer......... does he get the $9 million?

B-B-B-BILLION

 

[warrior-cat]

Dont doubt that a bit. Im sure its incredibly bloated, like any other branch of government.

The military spends about 3 to 4 times the amount of money on most items than what the private sector would pay. Also, if a unit is given a budget and does not spend all of the money, then the next fiscal year it is penalized by not getting that same budgeted money. So most spend it all and a lot of what they buy with the left over money, they don't really need. It is crazy how they run the money train in the military.

 

[fuzz77]

The military spends about 3 to 4 times the amount of money on most items than what the private sector would pay. Also, if a unit is given a budget and does not spend all of the money, then the next fiscal year it is penalized by not getting that same budgeted money. So most spend it all and a lot of what they buy with the left over money, they don't really need. It is crazy how they run the money train in the military.

We spend more on the military than China, Russia, UK, Japan, France, India,Saudi Arabia, Italy, Germany and Brazil...the next 10 largest spenders...COMBINED with 30 billion left over!
If military spending was cut in half then we would still be out spending China, Russia and the UK combined.

FYI, not spending all of your budget will get your next budget cut in any walk of life, private or public.

 

[Bill Derington]

Warrior, thats how all Government agencies are operated. If they don't spend all their allocated budget in a fiscal year. The next year the budget is cut by that much, it's insane the amount of unnecessary spending the Government does in the month of September.

 

[Deeeefense]

Warrior, thats how all Government agencies are operated. If they don't spend all their allocated budget in a fiscal year. The next year the budget is cut by that much, it's insane the amount of unnecessary spending the Government does in the month of September.

I could never figure out why they didn't allow a partial rollover to the next fiscal year. For instance if you have a $10,000 budget for office equipment but only spent $5000 this year, let the department roll over half, $2500 to the next FY. That would provide an incentive not to needlessly spend money. Budgets need to have some flexibility in them.

 

[Deeeefense]

We spend more on the military than China, Russia, UK, Japan, France, India,Saudi Arabia, Italy, Germany and Brazil...the next 10 largest spenders...COMBINED with 30 billion left over!

Also we have 650 operating military bases all over the globe whereas China has zero. Either our government is extremely paranoid or someone thinks our job is to be providing a world police force. It very unfair to strap the US taxpayer with this kind of burden while others chip in next to nothing.

 

[DSmith21]

Also we have 650 operating military bases all over the globe whereas China has zero. Either our government is extremely paranoid or someone thinks our job is to be providing a world police force. It very unfair to strap the US taxpayer with this kind of burden while others chip in next to nothing.

China is building a military base in the middle of the South China Sea on reclaimed land in the Spratlys. In order to do this, they are having to build an entire island by dredging sand off the bottom of the ocean. They are calling this island their unsinkable aircraft-carrier and will station planes and anti-ship missiles there. This is meant to counter U.S. carrier power. China also claims that it owns the sea out to 100 miles from its shores which is basically the whole China sea. The international standard is 12 miles. China is becoming a very real threat to its neighbors (many of which are our allies).

Its also very hard to compare our military spending to China's. They are opaque about what they spend, most published figures are a guess. They also pay their soldiers a fraction of what we do and steal very expensive military technologies from us and Russia. This is a huge R&D savings for them.

 

[warrior-cat]

We spend more on the military than China, Russia, UK, Japan, France, India,Saudi Arabia, Italy, Germany and Brazil...the next 10 largest spenders...COMBINED with 30 billion left over!
If military spending was cut in half then we would still be out spending China, Russia and the UK combined.

FYI, not spending all of your budget will get your next budget cut in any walk of life, private or public.

Obviously you did not understand the post or its me

Warrior, thats how all Government agencies are operated. If they don't spend all their allocated budget in a fiscal year. The next year the budget is cut by that much, it's insane the amount of unnecessary spending the Government does in the month of September.

That is pretty much my point. We need to make it to where commanders get awards for keeping it under the allotted amount for the unit. This amount is determined before hand for combat readiness and effectiveness. If a unit does all of the right things and keeps their maintenance current and therefore cutting down on expenses they should be rewarded and not told to spend it all or else. That alone would save billions over a few years. Plus, spending $23-30 on a $8.00 hammer is ridiculous. There are ways we could save a lot of money while maintaining a force big enough and strong enough to do the job we want them to. Also, as I once posted, if countries need our help, they need to foot the bill.

 

[fuzz77]

China is building a military base in the middle of the South China Sea on reclaimed land in the Spratlys. In order to do this, they are having to build an entire island by dredging sand off the bottom of the ocean. They are calling this island their unsinkable aircraft-carrier and will station planes and anti-ship missiles there. This is meant to counter U.S. carrier power. China also claims that it owns the sea out to 100 miles from its shores which is basically the whole China sea. The international standard is 12 miles. China is becoming a very real threat to its neighbors (many of which are our allies).

Its also very hard to compare our military spending to China's. They are opaque about what they spend, most published figures are a guess. They also pay their soldiers a fraction of what we do and steal very expensive military technologies from us and Russia. This is a huge R&D savings for them.

So you're ok with us having bases in S. Korea, Japan, Singapore, Thailand...but them not having one in the South China Sea?
Why should the US be the world police? Why should US taxpayers have to carry that burden?

 

[KopiKat]

So you're ok with us having bases in S. Korea, Japan, Singapore, Thailand...but them not having one in the South China Sea?
Why should the US be the world police? Why should US taxpayers have to carry that burden?

The Chinese have no intention of stopping at just one. And although your question was not directed toward me, and although I make a practice of staying out of the political discussions (enjoy reading them regularly), I have chosen to enter this one briefly by offering an answer: Yes, absolutely. I am most certainly "OK" with the United States having "more" than China in the way of military progress and associated footprints throughout the world, to include the south Pacific, on land and otherwise. Anything and everything that can be done peacefully to assure this remains accomplished is worth accomplishing.

As for the answers to your remaining questions: US taxpayers are a productive species, indeed. Perhaps you can point me in the direction of an endorsed and published doctoral thesis that explores the sustained prosperity of that species, yet accepts a scenario where the elite forces of the world are no longer engineered by or for the interest of that species but, rather, against.

 

[GrandePdre]

 

[JHB4UK]

Never ceases to amaze me how liberal democrats shamelessly use an evil act where a gun was used to propose new gun restriction laws which would not have even prevented the violence that just occurred. but hey, go all-in on that ish Hillary.

 

[DSmith21]

So you're ok with us having bases in S. Korea, Japan, Singapore, Thailand...but them not having one in the South China Sea?
Why should the US be the world police? Why should US taxpayers have to carry that burden?

I don't mind China having bases in lands it legally owns or as a guest of another country. I do have a problem with them building an island in the middle of heavily disputed waters and the claiming then waters surrounding it for 100 miles as their own. That's crazy.

 

[wkycatfan]

Never ceases to amaze me how liberal democrats shamelessly use an evil act where a gun was used to propose new gun restriction laws which would not have even prevented the violence that just occurred. but hey, go all-in on that ish Hillary.

It's pretty bad. They can't seem to get to a microphone fast enough.

 

[fuzz77]

Never ceases to amaze me how liberal democrats shamelessly use an evil act where a gun was used to propose new gun restriction laws which would not have even prevented the violence that just occurred. but hey, go all-in on that ish Hillary.

Was James Brady a "liberal Democrat"?

 

[fuzz77]

I don't mind China having bases in lands it legally owns or as a guest of another country. I do have a problem with them building an island in the middle of heavily disputed waters and the claiming the waters surrounding it for 100 miles as their own. That's crazy.

Would you rather that they build bases in North Korea, Vietnam...Burma? Maybe find/claim an island in the middle of the Pacific and build one there? Japan claims quite a few hundreds of miles off their main islands.

Yeah, I agree that the 100 mile territorial waters thing is a bit much but we pretty much claim the entire Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, Arctic Oceans, Arabian Sea...wherever the fleet sets sail.
I just think it's hypocritical for Americans to fuss about anyone else when it comes to setting up bases outside the borders of ones own state.

 

[P19978]

Lost in all of the irrelevant stuff last week is the news that the Fed lowered their growth expectations down to 1.8-2.0%.

For those that don't understand this stuff, that's the Fed telling us the economy is weaker than previously expected.

Obama sure is is doing a nice job.

Waiting for a liberal to say "Bbbbut unemployment is down...".

 

[qwesley]

Never ceases to amaze me how liberal democrats shamelessly use an evil act where a gun was used to propose new gun restriction laws which would not have even prevented the violence that just occurred. but hey, go all-in on that ish Hillary.

Most I have heard have only spoken in generalities and slogans, no specific policy suggestions at all. BO was so tore up in that speech that he had to go distract himself playing golf in Palm Springs. He rebounded well though to get some major cash from celebrities tho while out there.

 

[qwesley]

Via Forbes, condolences to LEK, Kel, and FuzzyRQ....better luck next year. Maybe they will uncover that the Charleston pos went to VBS as a kid and you can get those credited to Christians.



The number of people killed in terrorist attacks around the world rose sharply in 2014, according to the US State Department. Compared to 2013, attacks were up 35 percent while fatalities increased 81 percent, reaching 32,700. This trend is primarily due to activity in Iraq, Afghanistan and Nigeria, as well as the exceptionally lethal manner of many attacks.

Out of the attacks where perpetrator information was available, Boko Haram came first for lethality. The Nigerian jihadist group was responsible for 6,644 deaths in 2014, slightly ahead of ISIL who inflicted 6,286 fatalities during the same year. The Taliban had the third highest death toll of any terrorist group worldwide last year according to the US State Department.

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

I don't want to derail your train of thought Wes but it looks like there was a big increase from '13 to '14? Was under the impression we were entering a new era of respect around the world and diplomacy when Obes was elected.

Also, did Boko not get the memorandum about the Twitter hashtag campaign?????

 

[qwesley]

They brought the girls back after they gang-raped and knocked them up so that could be sold as progress. Anyhoo, the real answer is Bush.

Some other weekend takeaways:

Susan Rice listed work on TPP as one of Hillary's accomplishments.
Politifact list Obama's statements about US violence versus the rest of the world as "mostly false"
More lies uncovered by the role Gruber played and his communications with the WH.

 

[Deeeefense]

Never ceases to amaze me how liberal democrats shamelessly use an evil act where a gun was used to propose new gun restriction laws which would not have even prevented the violence that just occurred. but hey, go all-in on that ish Hillary.

The country seems to be divided into two camps. Those that believe the government should make meaningful reforms in the area of gun background checks, mental illness detection, and monitoring of potentially dangerous individuals, and then there's the other camp that thinks we should do nothing and that another mass shooting is just business as usual - you know $hit happens.

Maybe the fact that we never seem to do anything is why every time an incident like this occurs people in the first group speak out once more. We will never stop all gun violence but there are some common sense things we can do to make it more difficult for troubled or dangerous individuals to get access to guns without compromising the rights of law abiding citizens to own, carry and use guns. I think that's what the first group is all about, and I think its the majority.

 

[warrior-cat]

Lost in all of the irrelevant stuff last week is the news that the Fed lowered their growth expectations down to 1.8-2.0%.

For those that don't understand this stuff, that's the Fed telling us the economy is weaker than previously expected.

Obama sure is is doing a nice job.

Waiting for a liberal to say "Bbbbut unemployment is down...".

No, that would be Bbbbbush's fault.