A painless way to solve our growing debt:

[RoshawnMarkwees]

We can have the same net effect by cutting spending 3%, I'm against new taxes

You're not alone, which is why we keep doing the same thing over and over again and some expect a different outcome.

How many federal workers wold lose their jobs if 3% was cut from the Federal Budget? Do you know?

Just for fun, do you know we have less civilian Federal Employees today, then we did in 1966?

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/22/bloated-government-federal-employment-at-47-year-low/

Just for fun, let's say 2.5 million civilian American Citizens are employed by the Federal Government, if we cut 3% 75,000 civilian employees will be terminated.

Now what are the consequences of such a layoff? Consider, the saving to the budget and then factor in the unintended consequences of large layoffs on the person, his or her family, the community in which they live and where they last worked.

You conveniently leave out contractors. Lots of my friends here in DC work as subcontractors to the fed. One estimate working contractors into the mix increases the number of gov workers to 40 million.

 

[Wry Catcher]

We can have the same net effect by cutting spending 3%, I'm against new taxes

You're not alone, which is why we keep doing the same thing over and over again and some expect a different outcome.
How many federal workers wold lose their jobs if 3% was cut from the Federal Budget? Do you know?

Necessarily?
None.
Why?
Cutting entitlement benefits - the huge majority of federal spending - by 3% does not reduce the number of people getting benefits.

Cutting entitlements is the best way to cut our deficit (shakes head and walks away)?

 

[M14 Shooter]

We can have the same net effect by cutting spending 3%, I'm against new taxes

You're not alone, which is why we keep doing the same thing over and over again and some expect a different outcome.
How many federal workers wold lose their jobs if 3% was cut from the Federal Budget? Do you know?

Necessarily?
None.
Why?
Cutting entitlement benefits - the huge majority of federal spending - by 3% does not reduce the number of people getting benefits.

Cutting entitlements is the best way to cut our deficit (shakes head and walks away)?

Ah... you didn't like the way I debunked your point and so you run away.
Like all your other discussions.
No surprises.

 

[Uncensored2008]

tax the purchases of stocks, bonds and other financial instruments.

See and read:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/a-sales-tax-on-wall-street-transactions/?_r=0

Now vote:

Wow, you Communists are even more retarded than I feared.

Punish growth of the economy..

I get it that evolution has triggered a suicide gene in you that makes you seek to eradicate yourselves.

But do you mind not taking we the sane with you?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

A painless way to solve our growing debt

It's called not spending money you don't have.

 

[Uncensored2008]

We can have the same net effect by cutting spending 3%, I'm against new taxes

This isn't just the usual tax proposal from the greedy fucks of the left, this is a proposal to punish the expansion of the economy. Notice that the fool in the DNC Times proposes taxing INVESTMENT at the time of the investment - not gains, but investment. She is actually proposing a war on the US Economy with the goal of utterly destroying it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

A painless way to solve our growing debt

It's called not spending money you don't have.

Liberals will never agree to this as it reduces their ability to buy votes.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Audit and shrink government. That'll do it.

CrusaderFrank chastised me for calling others stupid. I always take his suggesting to heart, or the colon. In this case let me say your post is ridiculous, an echo and thoughtless.

At least my post had a point beyond disparagement.

How about responding to the op with a substantive remark?

I made perfectly legitimate and concise response. Audit and shrink government. Deal with that.

I have! Now explain how that impacts the economy, unemployment and the deficit. Do you really think cutting jobs or entitlements are free? The Federal Government MAY benefit some, but a I doubt it; yet, every state, county, parish, city and town, school district and special district will suffer.

 

[Wry Catcher]

We can have the same net effect by cutting spending 3%, I'm against new taxes

You're not alone, which is why we keep doing the same thing over and over again and some expect a different outcome.

How many federal workers wold lose their jobs if 3% was cut from the Federal Budget? Do you know?

Just for fun, do you know we have less civilian Federal Employees today, then we did in 1966?

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/22/bloated-government-federal-employment-at-47-year-low/

Just for fun, let's say 2.5 million civilian American Citizens are employed by the Federal Government, if we cut 3% 75,000 civilian employees will be terminated.

Now what are the consequences of such a layoff? Consider, the saving to the budget and then factor in the unintended consequences of large layoffs on the person, his or her family, the community in which they live and where they last worked.

You conveniently leave out contractors. Lots of my friends here in DC work as subcontractors to the fed. One estimate working contractors into the mix increases the number of gov workers to 40 million.

Private sector contractors are part of local communities & will suffer if the federal budget is cut across the board 3%. Which source put the figure at 40 million? I doubt that = 40 million ft equivalent employees.

 

[Wry Catcher]

We can have the same net effect by cutting spending 3%, I'm against new taxes

This isn't just the usual tax proposal from the greedy fucks of the left, this is a proposal to punish the expansion of the economy. Notice that the fool in the DNC Times proposes taxing INVESTMENT at the time of the investment - not gains, but investment. She is actually proposing a war on the US Economy with the goal of utterly destroying it.

That's her goal huh? What are you, a descendant of Nostradamus?

SEC.gov | Section 31 Transaction Fees

Read the link, if you have and came to that conclusion you are too biased or too dumb to offer a competent opinion.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That's her goal huh? What are you, a descendant of Nostradamus?

No, I'm literate. Placing a sales tax of 6 to 50% on the PURCHASE of stocks is a frontal assault on the U.S. economy, a calculated and deliberate attack on the financial health of the nation.

SEC.gov | Section 31 Transaction Fees

Read the link, if you have and came to that conclusion you are too biased or too dumb to offer a competent opinion.

I assume you're being disingenuous, because if you are too stupid to grasp a fee on transactions and a PERCENTAGE of purchases, you'd vote for Obama twice and certainly couldn't discuss economics. Nancy Folbre is a radical Marxist from academia dedicated to the destruction of the American economy and the Constitutional republic.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

A painless way to solve our growing debt

It's called not spending money you don't have.

Liberals will never agree to this as it reduces their ability to buy votes.

Conservatives won't agree to it either.

 

[Wry Catcher]

That's her goal huh? What are you, a descendant of Nostradamus?

No, I'm literate. Placing a sales tax of 6 to 50% on the PURCHASE of stocks is a frontal assault on the U.S. economy, a calculated and deliberate attack on the financial health of the nation.

SEC.gov | Section 31 Transaction Fees

Read the link, if you have and came to that conclusion you are too biased or too dumb to offer a competent opinion.

I assume you're being disingenuous, because if you are too stupid to grasp a fee on transactions and a PERCENTAGE of purchases, you'd vote for Obama twice and certainly couldn't discuss economics. Nancy Folbre is a radical Marxist from academia dedicated to the destruction of the American economy and the Constitutional republic.

I didn't say anything about percentages, in fact my opinion is to charge a nominal fee for every transactions, big or small. Say .25 cents per purchase or sale.

The article links to a number of sources, this thread is about an idea, an idea to raise money to reduce the deficit and maybe the debt.

The fee could be structured to keep the hands of Congress off of the revenue and go directly to the repurchase of treasury bills.

This Communism rhetoric is bullshit; though I know nothing about the author, I find the idea intriguing and worthy of discussing. Doing nothing seems to be the plan of the current congress, and the right seems to feel only cutting health care, social security and other social benefits & harming the poor, aged and infirm is the best way to go.

 

[hortysir]

tax the purchases of stocks, bonds and other financial instruments.

See and read:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/a-sales-tax-on-wall-street-transactions/?_r=0

Now vote:

How about taxing all purchases? Equally, at the same rate?

Why should some pay more than others?

 

[gipper]

Limit the fed gov to doing only what is specifically outlined in the Constitution. Eliminate the fed income tax. Reduce military spending dramatically. Close all foreign bases.

Leave everything else to the states.

 

[Wry Catcher]

tax the purchases of stocks, bonds and other financial instruments.

See and read:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/a-sales-tax-on-wall-street-transactions/?_r=0

Now vote:

How about taxing all purchases? Equally, at the same rate?

Why should some pay more than others?

Some pay more than others now. Do you want those who have no money to invest to pay taxes on milk and bread? Is that what you are suggesting?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Limit the fed gov to doing only what is specifically outlined in the Constitution. Eliminate the fed income tax. Reduce military spending dramatically. Close all foreign bases.

Leave everything else to the states.

Seems you object to Federalism and want to return to the 18th Century and the Articles of Confederation. I don't, and I suspect anyone with some knowledge of why the Articles where tossed under the bus agree with me and not you.

 

[hortysir]

tax the purchases of stocks, bonds and other financial instruments.

See and read:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/a-sales-tax-on-wall-street-transactions/?_r=0

Now vote:

How about taxing all purchases? Equally, at the same rate?

Why should some pay more than others?

Some pay more than others now. Do you want those who have no money to invest to pay taxes on milk and bread? Is that what you are suggesting?

The more money you make, the more stuff you buy, the more taxes you pay.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Audit and shrink government. That'll do it.

CrusaderFrank chastised me for calling others stupid. I always take his suggesting to heart, or the colon. In this case let me say your post is ridiculous, an echo and thoughtless.

At least my post had a point beyond disparagement.

How about responding to the op with a substantive remark?

I made perfectly legitimate and concise response. Audit and shrink government. Deal with that.

I have! Now explain how that impacts the economy, unemployment and the deficit. Do you really think cutting jobs or entitlements are free? The Federal Government MAY benefit some, but a I doubt it; yet, every state, county, parish, city and town, school district and special district will suffer.

Every necessary job the gov attempts can be done more efficiently in the private sector. Every gov job that is cut frees up that much more money for the private sector and that freed money grows.

 

[Wry Catcher]

tax the purchases of stocks, bonds and other financial instruments.

See and read:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/a-sales-tax-on-wall-street-transactions/?_r=0

Now vote:

How about taxing all purchases? Equally, at the same rate?

Why should some pay more than others?

Some pay more than others now. Do you want those who have no money to invest to pay taxes on milk and bread? Is that what you are suggesting?

The more money you make, the more stuff you buy, the more taxes you pay.

Do you have facts to prove your assertion?