A painless way to solve our growing debt:

[Spare_change]

I come late to this thread, but I've read every single post.

I am astounded at the level of ignorance displayed by most posters. Their failure to even remotely understand the basic principles of macroeconomics is startling.

Y'all need to do some serious study .... all you're doing is making yourselves look foolish.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Honestly, cutting is meaningless unless it cones from entitlements, as entitlement spending is the only category large enough to meaningfully cut from.
FY2013, we had a $719B deficit
Total entitlement spending $2338B (66% total spending)
Total budgeted spending: $1201B (34% total spending)
Total defense spending: $624B
We could have spend $0 on defense and still run an almost $100B deficit.

I agree that we should cut welfare, foreign aid and end the wars, but leave the investment that makes our country powerful alone.

Have either of you thought of what might be the consequences of cutting welfare and foreign aid? Unnecessary wars I fully understand.

Have you thought about of what might be the consequences of cutting what you think is OK to cut.
Of coruse not.

Cutting waste and redundancy is never a bad thing.

Including waste and redundancy our of the entitlement system.
Correct?

Waste and redundancy anywhere.

 

[Staidhup]

Reagan had it right, "Government is not the solution its the problem".

 

[MikeK]

Me,

I'd raise taxes on the rich to 45%, cut the military to 400 billion per year and nationalize our healthcare system. I'd put most of the savings into infrastructure, science and education...This would expand our economy and decrease the debt faster.

FDR imposed a 91% tax on the rich and Eisenhower continued it. The result was the most prosperous and productive decades in our history. And it should be noted the imposition didn't hurt the rich or make them poor. It simply made them a bit less rich.

 

[M14 Shooter]

(1) FDR imposed a 91% tax on the rich and Eisenhower continued it.
(2) The result was the most prosperous and productive decades in our history

Please describe the necessary relationship between these two ideas.

 

[MikeK]

I'd raise taxes on the rich to 45%, cut the military to 400 billion per year and nationalize our healthcare system. I'd put most of the savings into infrastructure, science and education...and watch the country collapse shortly thereafer

It would help a lot to terminate the utterly useless, wholly counterproductive War on Drugs, which already has cost us more than a trillion dollars without producing the slightest reduction in the use and availability of illegal recreational drugs. The only thing the drug war has produced is a prison/industrial complex and the largest, costliest prison population in the world.

Even if we did absolutely nothing but suspend all recreational drug laws the only thing that would change is we would save an enormous amount of money and put an end to the most worthless, destructive, counterproductive bureaucracy in history.

 

[MikeK]

(1) FDR imposed a 91% tax on the rich and Eisenhower continued it.
(2) The result was the most prosperous and productive decades in our history

Please describe the necessary relationship between these two ideas.

Both FDR and Eisenhower poured a great deal of money into federal make-work programs which employed a lot of Americans at living-wage jobs. My own father, who was out of work during the Great Depression, was employed in forestry projects (CCC and WPA) which rehabilitated and preserved some of the national parks we are so proud of today. Were it not for these projects my family was on the verge of being homeless and destitute. Many others were similarly aided by jobs enabled by Eisenhower who created the national highway system which we all enjoy today.

Those gainfully employed workers spent the money they earned, which created enormous demand for products, which gave rise to many industries and prevented the failure of others. It's called re-distribution of national wealth resources -- and it works! Please don't allow those misguided, radical Conservatives who support and patronize the One Percent to delude you into believing re-distribution isn't only beneficial but necessary to the purpose of stabilizing and restoring our failing economy -- which has been ravaged by the greedy hoarding of money.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Why is cutting everything the answer for everything? I could see cutting welfare and bail-outs,,,but why our infrastructure and science programs? Seems kind of short sighted.

Honestly, cutting is meaningless unless it cones from entitlements, as entitlement spending is the only category large enough to meaningfully cut from.
FY2013, we had a $719B deficit
Total entitlement spending $2338B (66% total spending)
Total budgeted spending: $1201B (34% total spending)
Total defense spending: $624B
We could have spend $0 on defense and still run an almost $100B deficit.

I agree that we should cut welfare, foreign aid and end the wars, but leave the investment that makes our country powerful alone.

Have either of you thought of what might be the consequences of cutting welfare and foreign aid? Unnecessary wars I fully understand.

Have you thought about of what might be the consequences of cutting what you think is OK to cut.
Of coruse not.

Cutting waste and redundancy is never a bad thing.

Add accountability! We need a government that will work towards less corruption but will fund infrastructure, science, r&d, education and exploration that makes America great! This is what makes America respected.

 

[M14 Shooter]

(1) FDR imposed a 91% tax on the rich and Eisenhower continued it.
(2) The result was the most prosperous and productive decades in our history

Please describe the necessary relationship between these two ideas.

Both FDR and Eisenhower poured a great deal of money into federal make-work programs which employed a lot of Americans at living-wage jobs. My own father, who was out of work during the Great Depression, was employed in forestry projects which rehabilitated and preserved some of the national parks we are so proud of today. Were it not for these projects my family was on the verge of being homeless and destitute. Many others were similarly aided by jobs enabled by Eisenhower who created the national highway system which we all enjoy today.

Those gainfully employed workers spent the money they earned, which created enormous demand for products, which gave rise to many industries and prevented the failure of others. It's called re-distribution of national wealth resources -- and it works! Please don't allow those misguided, radical Conservatives who support and patronize the One Percent to delude you into believing re-distribution isn't only beneficial but necessary to the purpose of stabilizing and restoring our failing economy -- which has been ravaged by the greedy hoarding of money.

I'm sorry... looking for a necessary relationship between two events, not an anecdote.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Honestly, cutting is meaningless unless it cones from entitlements, as entitlement spending is the only category large enough to meaningfully cut from.
FY2013, we had a $719B deficit
Total entitlement spending $2338B (66% total spending)
Total budgeted spending: $1201B (34% total spending)
Total defense spending: $624B
We could have spend $0 on defense and still run an almost $100B deficit.

I agree that we should cut welfare, foreign aid and end the wars, but leave the investment that makes our country powerful alone.

Have either of you thought of what might be the consequences of cutting welfare and foreign aid? Unnecessary wars I fully understand.

Have you thought about of what might be the consequences of cutting what you think is OK to cut.
Of coruse not.

Cutting waste and redundancy is never a bad thing.

Add accountability! We need a government that will work towards less corruption but will fund infrastructure, science, r&d, education and exploration that makes America great! This is what makes America respected.

That goes back to my original point about about auditing government.

 

[Staidhup]

Me,

I'd raise taxes on the rich to 45%, cut the military to 400 billion per year and nationalize our healthcare system. I'd put most of the savings into infrastructure, science and education...This would expand our economy and decrease the debt faster.

FDR imposed a 91% tax on the rich and Eisenhower continued it. The result was the most prosperous and productive decades in our history. And it should be noted the imposition didn't hurt the rich or make them poor. It simply made them a bit less rich.

We were the only industrialized nation still standing after the war, manufacturing was converted to addressing pent up consumer demand, within 15 years the effects attributed to rebuilding Europe and Asia commenced with the increase in imports, decline in exports and slow methodical decline in domestic manufacturing. By 1968 the erosion in the US economy forced the government to allow the dollar to float and no longer be backed by gold. Please explain how increased government liabilities attributed to your plan would result in increased tax revenue. I was taught expansion in middle class jobs increased tax revenue, due to statistical expansion, and that there is a finite number of upper middle class and wealthy? Once the upper middle class and wealthy are taxed 45% federally and for the sake of argument 10%-18% in each state resulting in a combined 55%-63% tax rate coupled with punitive estate taxes the number would decrease over time, would it not? Who do you propose is going to fund, build, and develop those jobs, the government? Who is going to fund national debt once the dollar has the Renminbi to compete with as an international trade currency? As for the military cuts, how do you propose keeping the lanes of international commerce free and open to trade? I find it ironic that one can subscribe to the belief that one can tax their way to prosperity.

 

[MikeK]

(1) FDR imposed a 91% tax on the rich and Eisenhower continued it.
(2) The result was the most prosperous and productive decades in our history

Please describe the necessary relationship between these two ideas.

Both FDR and Eisenhower poured a great deal of money into federal make-work programs which employed a lot of Americans at living-wage jobs. My own father, who was out of work during the Great Depression, was employed in forestry projects which rehabilitated and preserved some of the national parks we are so proud of today. Were it not for these projects my family was on the verge of being homeless and destitute. Many others were similarly aided by jobs enabled by Eisenhower who created the national highway system which we all enjoy today.

Those gainfully employed workers spent the money they earned, which created enormous demand for products, which gave rise to many industries and prevented the failure of others. It's called re-distribution of national wealth resources -- and it works! Please don't allow those misguided, radical Conservatives who support and patronize the One Percent to delude you into believing re-distribution isn't only beneficial but necessary to the purpose of stabilizing and restoring our failing economy -- which has been ravaged by the greedy hoarding of money.

I'm sorry... looking for a necessary relationship between two events, not an anecdote.

FDR's and Eisenhower's imposition and continuation of a 91% tax on the rich were not "events." They were actions. And I think what you mean by "necessary relationship" is the result of those actions -- which I believe my explanation is sufficient to satisfy any reasoning mind.

 

[M14 Shooter]

(1) FDR imposed a 91% tax on the rich and Eisenhower continued it.
(2) The result was the most prosperous and productive decades in our history

Please describe the necessary relationship between these two ideas.

Both FDR and Eisenhower poured a great deal of money into federal make-work programs which employed a lot of Americans at living-wage jobs. My own father, who was out of work during the Great Depression, was employed in forestry projects which rehabilitated and preserved some of the national parks we are so proud of today. Were it not for these projects my family was on the verge of being homeless and destitute. Many others were similarly aided by jobs enabled by Eisenhower who created the national highway system which we all enjoy today.

Those gainfully employed workers spent the money they earned, which created enormous demand for products, which gave rise to many industries and prevented the failure of others. It's called re-distribution of national wealth resources -- and it works! Please don't allow those misguided, radical Conservatives who support and patronize the One Percent to delude you into believing re-distribution isn't only beneficial but necessary to the purpose of stabilizing and restoring our failing economy -- which has been ravaged by the greedy hoarding of money.

I'm sorry... looking for a necessary relationship between two events, not an anecdote.

FDR's and Eisenhower's imposition and continuation of a 91% tax on the rich were not "events." They were actions.

Pedantry will get you nowhere.

And I think what you mean by "necessary relationship" is the result of those actions

I want you to show that (2) is the necessary result of (1), that if not (1) then not (2).

 

[MikeK]

Me,

I'd raise taxes on the rich to 45%, cut the military to 400 billion per year and nationalize our healthcare system. I'd put most of the savings into infrastructure, science and education...This would expand our economy and decrease the debt faster.

FDR imposed a 91% tax on the rich and Eisenhower continued it. The result was the most prosperous and productive decades in our history. And it should be noted the imposition didn't hurt the rich or make them poor. It simply made them a bit less rich.

We were the only industrialized nation still standing after the war, manufacturing was converted to addressing pent up consumer demand, within 15 years the effects attributed to rebuilding Europe and Asia commenced with the increase in imports, decline in exports and slow methodical decline in domestic manufacturing. By 1968 the erosion in the US economy forced the government to allow the dollar to float and no longer be backed by gold. Please explain how increased government liabilities attributed to your plan would result in increased tax revenue. I was taught expansion in middle class jobs increased tax revenue, due to statistical expansion, and that there is a finite number of upper middle class and wealthy? Once the upper middle class and wealthy are taxed 45% federally and for the sake of argument 10%-18% in each state resulting in a combined 55%-63% tax rate coupled with punitive estate taxes the number would decrease over time, would it not? Who do you propose is going to fund, build, and develop those jobs, the government? Who is going to fund national debt once the dollar has the Renminbi to compete with as an international trade currency? As for the military cuts, how do you propose keeping the lanes of international commerce free and open to trade? I find it ironic that one can subscribe to the belief that one can tax their way to prosperity.

You are seeking a redundantly complicated academic answer to what is in fact a relatively simple problem. That problem is the accumulation and hoarding of grossly excessive amounts of our national wealth resources by a very small number of citizens (the "One Percent"). The effect of this hoarding is what we are witnessing today in rising debt, stagnant wages and unemployment. Unfortunately there are no specific laws to prevent this exploitation, but one very effective way to deal with it is confiscatory taxation imposed on the hoarders for the purpose of re-distributing the hoarded wealth.

FDR did it. Eisenhower did it. The results of their actions are obvious in the decades between the late '40s and early '80s, which is when Ronald Reagan's "trickle-down" economics scam, which in fact was the same Milton Friedman style siphon-up economics which enabled Pinochet to ravage the Chilean economy, commenced a series of deregulations which ultimately sabotaged the efforts of both FDR and Eisenhower and created the economic monster we are looking at today.

 

[MikeK]

I want you to show that (2) is the necessary result of (1), that if not (1) then not (2).

Go away.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I want you to show that (2) is the necessary result of (1), that if not (1) then not (2)

Go away.

I accept your concession of the point.
When you have something other than anecdotes and post hoc ergo propter hoc. let me know.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

When you have something other than anecdotes and post hoc ergo propter hoc. let me know.

Sounds like someone needs an expectorant.

 

[Spare_change]

Me,

I'd raise taxes on the rich to 45%, cut the military to 400 billion per year and nationalize our healthcare system. I'd put most of the savings into infrastructure, science and education...This would expand our economy and decrease the debt faster.

FDR imposed a 91% tax on the rich and Eisenhower continued it. The result was the most prosperous and productive decades in our history. And it should be noted the imposition didn't hurt the rich or make them poor. It simply made them a bit less rich.

See what i mean about the astounding ignorance on display in this thread?