Cutting through all the tax collection nonsense, we need to address one thing.

[middleview]

I have posted my opinions on several threads: I believe that we must raise taxes as well as cutting spending. I posted earlier in this thread how to cut defense spending. You must have missed that.

1. I would cut the federal payroll by a graduated set of reductions over the next 5 years at increments of 1% per year for employees making less than $60k, 2% for those making more than $60k and less than $75k and on up to the top 5% of federal employees and appointees....they would get an immediate 15% cut.
2. I would phase out SS and Medicare for people who have retirement income over $100k. I would do that over a ten year time frame, to give people time to adjust. If they wanted to continue their medicare coverage I'd make that available through a cobra like plan.
3. I would increase fees for inspections at ports of entry. If you are shipping products into the United States then you will have to pay the costs associated with that effort, rather than the taxpayers of this country. If that means you have to increase what you charge for those products...good.
4. I would ask congress to pass a bill that would require any legislation that required any federal expenditure would also have a revenue mechanism. I would require a five year, ten year and 20 year evaluation.....if any of those evaluations showed a substantial difference between revenue and spending expectations then I'd require a re-vote or the bill would automatically be rescinded. The details of exactly how that happens would require a lot of thought....but we cannot keep passing laws that radically exceed the estimates of costs.

The requirement must be that we avoid huge layoffs within government functions. That only makes sense as we try to recover from Bush's recession.

 

[middleview]

"So you suggest.....??" might seem like an effective way to communicate, try "Would you suggest...."

That is the way the english language works.

 

[middleview]

On this thread I offered an idea for cutting defense spending. In a lot of other threads I've offered ideas about other ways to cut federal spending.

Interesting way to address someone who disagrees with you....just because I have opinions different from yours is hardly a reason to say those opinions are babble. I've written clear reasons why I think the cuts mentioned have a down side. Too bad it requires a logical thought process to actually think that through. It would make it difficult for you.

 

[Lukey]

If you actually balance the budget you'd have added about a million (at least) to the unemployment rolls. So you have to cut $1 trillion to do that. At that point you haven't even cut taxes by $1.

How do you figure job creation happens?

How many jobs did we lose after Bill Clinton declared "the era of big government is over?"

 

[middleview]

I grew up in Western Pa. There are towns there that when the mill shutdown and laid off 15,000 people the number that actually ended up unemployed was much higher. People whose customers used to work at the mill now lost their revenue from those customers. That would be much the same if you start laying off tens of thousands of federal workers.

My reading of the GAO study was more than the two minutes you put into it. I am just as skeptical of anything I read and try to evaluate the assumptions that the author makes. You just took the bottom line numbers. Remember, the study was written by a government employee. I always am more conservative than a lot of folks are in making these guesses. If you are too optimistic (like Obama was when he predicted they could keep unemployment under 8% if the stimulus was passed).

I don't care what Nancy Pelosi said. She doesn't speak for me. The fact is that should you eliminate unemployment benefits then you'd see a lot more homes in foreclosure and the impact would ripple though the areas most affected. I have a neighbor about to lose their home. It will have a negative impact on all of the homes in the neighborhood. When the $39 billion cut hit last summer there were 18,500 federal employees who lost their jobs.

 

[middleview]

which has what to do with the conversation about a huge cut in the federal budget?

 

[Lukey]

which has what to do with the conversation about a huge cut in the federal budget?

That the idea that we can't curtail government spending for fear of losing jobs is hogwash?

 

[middleview]

That the idea that we can't curtail government spending for fear of losing jobs is hogwash?

No kidding....hogwash and you with no research into the issue worth speaking of. There are ways to cut the budget without laying people off. Eliminating the education department (or the other two as in Rick Perry's plan) isn't one of them. We may well have laid federal employees off when the cuts in federal welfare programs happened. Were we in a recession then?

 

[middleview]

There is no information on just how they did their study. That makes it difficult to evaluate. It may be true that people accepted jobs that paid substantially less than they used to make. I have a friend who took a job as a deputy sherrif for about $50k when he had been making $150k. I have a former boss who was a VP and now drives a road grader for a rural county in New Mexico. Once someone starts working 8 hours a day it is much harder to find jobs.

As far as spending 20 minutes per day....who did they ask? When I was consulting and between contracts I'd spend two or three hours per day related to contacting potential customers for a new gig. That doesn't necessarily apply to someone who worked at a car factory or some other skilled job where the market is limited.

In any case, the data you provided is nowhere near convincing enough, nor is their much thought evident in that study as to the impact of a few million people chasing a few thousand jobs.....

 

[Lukey]

No kidding....hogwash and you with no research into the issue worth speaking of. There are ways to cut the budget without laying people off. Eliminating the education department (or the other two as in Rick Perry's plan) isn't one of them. We may well have laid federal employees off when the cuts in federal welfare programs happened. Were we in a recession then?

We are in a "permanent recession" now because of Obamunism, not because the government isn't spending enough money. We don't need "research" to tell us which way the wind is blowing...

 

[middleview]

If Obama had taken office at at time when we had 4.5% unemployment, a budget surplus, a booming economy and he had doubled the national debt, doubled (almost) the unemployment rate, gotten us into a major invasion with a country that wasn't a threat to the US and cratered the economy...I could understand that you hate the guy.

Instead we have a president who has increased the debt, but that was driven by the need to attempt to soften the blow for people who are most at risk. He lent money to GM and Chrysler....the result is that they are still in business and doing well. He extended unemployment benefits and while you guys seem to think all of those unemployed people are perfectly happy to sit at home for less than a quarter than they used to make, that extension kept people from losing their homes and allowed them to continue to look for work (looking for a job when you live out of your car aint all that attractive)....it also meant that those people wouldn't be an even larger drag on local agencies for the homeless and welfare or foodstamps. We had Hoovervilles in the 1930s....would have have preferred Bushvilles of cardboard shacks?

You need research to understand the impact of the things that Obama has done. The republicans would tell you that he has nationalized health care. That isn't anywhere near true. They said he had taken over GM (remember government motors?). That wasn't true either.

Where are the republican jobs bills? Go look at Cantor's website before you spout off about Reid holding up a ton of repub legislation. I've read though them and the only reference to jobs is in the titles. Tell me how the "Net Neutrality" bill would create a single job.

 

[Number_58]

Not difficult at all for me to think things through...I've asked you, more than once, on this thread alone what you would do and you didn't respond. Here's a revelation for you, believe it or not, I don't search every post looking for the "wisdom" of middleview to satisfy my day...therefore, I wouldn't have the slightest idea what your ideas of addressing the debt crisis are. Truthfully, I don't look for your posts at all...you're the one that responded to me. I offered my thoughts and you questioned them without expressing what you thought should be done. Then you, after being asked multiple times decide that the honorable way to answer is by attempting to insult my intelligence while still not answering my question, ergo, the reason I typically ignore what you have to say on other posts. Have a great day...

 

[Number_58]

Nope...didn't suggest it either...see, it's a typical way one would respond when inquiring the thoughts of someone else. If you're looking for formal and proper speaking based on YOUR idea of how things should or should not be done...you'll be extremely disappointed by most folks, on both sides of the political spectrum on this site. Further, I don't need your "lessons" on the proper use of the English language...there are only a couple of people who believe they are English professors who have been anal retentive enough to question me on my usage. Thanks anyway...and again...have a great day.

 

[OldGaffer]

If Obama had taken office at at time when we had 4.5% unemployment, a budget surplus, a booming economy and he had doubled the national debt, doubled (almost) the unemployment rate, gotten us into a major invasion with a country that wasn't a threat to the US and cratered the economy...I could understand that you hate the guy.

Instead we have a president who has increased the debt, but that was driven by the need to attempt to soften the blow for people who are most at risk. He lent money to GM and Chrysler....the result is that they are still in business and doing well. He extended unemployment benefits and while you guys seem to think all of those unemployed people are perfectly happy to sit at home for less than a quarter than they used to make, that extension kept people from losing their homes and allowed them to continue to look for work (looking for a job when you live out of your car aint all that attractive)....it also meant that those people wouldn't be an even larger drag on local agencies for the homeless and welfare or foodstamps. We had Hoovervilles in the 1930s....would have have preferred Bushvilles of cardboard shacks?

You need research to understand the impact of the things that Obama has done. The republicans would tell you that he has nationalized health care. That isn't anywhere near true. They said he had taken over GM (remember government motors?). That wasn't true either.

Where are the republican jobs bills? Go look at Cantor's website before you spout off about Reid holding up a ton of repub legislation. I've read though them and the only reference to jobs is in the titles. Tell me how the "Net Neutrality" bill would create a single job.

Good post Mid, of course the Wingers will ignore it or ridicule it and not address a single point of it. But yes, they would be perfectly happy with cardboard box cities of homeless and unemployed rather than give them food stamps and unemployment. After all, their ideal economy was the 1920's.

 

[Number_58]

#1...I'm fine with that, but tell me this...what will that total be...and how do you suggest we tell Congress the must pass a bill that cuts 15% out of their income immediately? I'm guessing there would be those that oppose that on both sides of the aisle.

#2...I'm assuming that since those over $100k have no hopes of collecting any SS, you would allow them to be exempt from the withholding?? And, since they are going to have to pay for their own insurance, they won't have to take that withholding either? Or is this just another "privilege" they get for being true Americans...you know the forced redistribution of their money...

#3...Okay with that...again, how much money are we talking about saving by doing this? And, are you okay with our country having to do the same thing in foreign ports that don't do so already? Because eventually, all those costs (foreign goods coming in and US companies shipping out) ends up right back in the pocket of the taxpayers when distributors, outlets, stores, pass on that very cost.

#4...Yeah, right...the Congress in Utopia might pass something like that...now, can you show me where Utopia is on the world map?

 

[Number_58]

Oh, so you agree with Donald Trump and Ron Paul regarding your foreign trade beliefs and military deployment and stationing views? Whoops better reword that...

Oh, so WOULD you agree with Donald Trump and Ron Paul regarding your foreign trade beliefs and military deployment and stationing views? Because in a nut shell that's their stances on the subjects you discuss...not Obama's.

 

[middleview]

I don't need your "lessons" on the proper use of the English language

We don't need an english professor to tell you that a statement with two question marks at the end does not make a question. You are correct in that you do not "need" a lesson from me....especially if you don't mind miscommunicating with others.

 

[Lukey]

I grew up in Western Pa. There are towns there that when the mill shutdown and laid off 15,000 people the number that actually ended up unemployed was much higher. People whose customers used to work at the mill now lost their revenue from those customers. That would be much the same if you start laying off tens of thousands of federal workers.

My reading of the GAO study was more than the two minutes you put into it. I am just as skeptical of anything I read and try to evaluate the assumptions that the author makes. You just took the bottom line numbers. Remember, the study was written by a government employee. I always am more conservative than a lot of folks are in making these guesses. If you are too optimistic (like Obama was when he predicted they could keep unemployment under 8% if the stimulus was passed).

I don't care what Nancy Pelosi said. She doesn't speak for me. The fact is that should you eliminate unemployment benefits then you'd see a lot more homes in foreclosure and the impact would ripple though the areas most affected. I have a neighbor about to lose their home. It will have a negative impact on all of the homes in the neighborhood. When the $39 billion cut hit last summer there were 18,500 federal employees who lost their jobs.

Yes, well so did I, and I haven't come away with the same left wing unionist lesson you did. You "see" all that and it makes you "understand" the importance of maintaining (and expanding) government spending (or union plants at taxpayer expense) as an important source of economic growth. But what you don't see is all the economic activity that doesn't occur because a big government is taxing and spending and regulating away the private economy. It is what is known as "the fallacy of the broken window."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

 

[middleview]

what does "unionist" in the context this conversation mean? I have posted on areas where spending can be cut. You are ignoring any sort of rational conversation in the hunt for debating points and losing.....

You're off in the weeds now sonny....

 

[Number_58]

Tell you what...respond to this post so that you can get your last word in and claim victory...I have neither the time nor the inclination to discuss issues with you...it's a complete waste of my time to have someone like you backhand insulting others in an effort to get them to violate some rule...find someone who either values or is offended by these little games you want to play...I ain't the one (there, you can b*tch about that English as your last word post)