Paul Ryan's budget proposal

• ptown_trojans_1

  

  I'm not a class warfare fighter. Everyone, everyone has to chip in. Rich, middle class, poor. Spending is half the solution to me. The other is to raise revenue. Let's face it, Ryan's budget only solves the problem in two or so decades with reducing spending. If people are serious about it, but back to the Clinton level taxes, which were low compared to the early 1990s, while drastic cuts.
  Do both.
  
  I come at this from a practical point of view.
  The country has been splurging the past 10 years off of high spending and low tax rates and low revenue. Spending is going to go down gradually, over the decades, with some spikes due to healthcare costs from no reform. Taxes should be streamlined, but back to the Clinton levels (which still allowed several booms). This will offset what I see as a slow growth from the economy.
  
  If we do that, and reform the big three, then we can drastically reduce the debt and balance the budget faster.
  
  Now, I'd add that the tax rate should be straight limited to timeframe, just like the Bush tax cuts. Say for example rates will be at X for Y years, then will have the option to continue or go back down. I could easily see that as a possibility in the future. The Bush tax cuts are a great example of a limited tax rate that can be changed every so often.
  If that makes me a statist because I see the need for everyone to contribute to pay off this mess left by our Congress, then so be it. What makes this different than rallying around the flag and sacrificing for the country? If it is limited, then I say hike it. I'm willing to pay it.
  
  I'm not calling for huge increase, just back to the Clinton rates in two or so years for a span of let's say 10 years.
  
  
  That all said, all of this will never happen as the system is too established to prohibit any changes whatsoever. Any changes will be small and will not tackle the large issues.
  
  Finally, I hate tax discussions as they always fall to the typical arguments. There is no rational discussion.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Seems like the British and Asian "dudes" get it more than many of our own people.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Writerbuckeye;740893 wrote:Seems like the British and Asian "dudes" get it more than many of our own people.

  
  Last I check they didn't have the number 1 economy in the world.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Let me ask 1 question and it is a big theoretical one.
  If every D in the House and Senate said yes to everything in the Ryan plan, but said, the only way we can accept it is if we go back to the Clinton tax rates.
  
  Would R's not concede that point and say sure that it is the pragmatic thing to do?
  
  Not going to happen, but to me, it takes both approaches.
• I Wear Pants

  BGFalcons82;740837 wrote:Ugh..."their money is needed to pay down the debt". Does this mean they were responsible for all the unwarranted, unnecessary, wasteful, and unholy spending over the past 40+ years? It is THE EVIL RICH'S FAULT? Huh? They got us into this deep hole and now it's up to them to pull everyone else out? Profits are soaring, so it's really money that belongs to "the people" and not those that were smart enough to figure out how to make money in a piss poor economy? Redistribute or die? Can you sew a flag with that on it? I never thought you the statist, ptown.
  
  Then you say it's up to everyone to take a hit and everyone has to suffer. Which is it...the evil rich fat cat's fault or everyone's?
  
  Finally...raising taxes to fix the debt is the worst lie of all time. As believer noted, no tax ever goes away. Don't believe me? Why do we still have a phone tax? Anybody using landlines these days? The idea of raising taxes is the "feel good" response and it makes everyone hold hands and sing kumbaya as the idea of everyone pitching more cash into the hole will solve it. Classic bullshit. Never happens. Ever. Just like Lucy promising that she won't pull the ball away from Charlie Brown's foot as he approaches. Everytime.

  Haven't we cut taxes like no other in the last couple administrations? That would seem like taxes going away.
• I Wear Pants

  Writerbuckeye;740845 wrote:God, you're a class warfare monger just like all the liberals out there -- including the man running this country. How many times do we need to say this: WE DON'T HAVE A REVENUE PROBLEM WE HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM.
  
  If you raise taxes in any way, shape or form THE IDIOTS WHO ARE IN CONGRESS AND THE IDIOT WHO IS PRESIDENT WILL JUST FIND WAYS TO SPEND IT.
  
  Oh and let me just add that I saw a quote on the news from Obama about his budget plan to "reduce" the deficit and he was ADAMANT that we will continue to spend on certain areas (green technology being one, education another) which only proves he IS an idiot and won't ever change.
  Again: the problem is SPENDING not revenue.

  We have a revenue and spending problem.
• BGFalcons82

  

  Federal spending historically is between 17-19% of the GDP. Under Belly's Public Servant, it's risen to 25% and his own forecast is to keep it around 23% for as far as he can see. What in the world makes him think that this level of spending can be sustained? Is it just because he says it is so? Why does he believe spending solves everything...the Krugman "bubble up" theory that spending money creates demand?
  
  As has been noted a few thousand times already on the OC, we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.
  
  Deal with it or the America we all grew up in will die. It really is that simple.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I Wear Pants;740934 wrote:We have a revenue and spending problem.

  I don't think so.
  
  With the amount of money that this country produces for itself, there should be no damn way that we should be in the mess we're in. But we are. And it's not because the country doesn't make enough money.
• I Wear Pants

  Cut spending + raise revenue.
  
  We don't just have a problem with a deficit we also have massive debt so simply balancing the budget via cutting spending isn't enough. We must also raise revenue. It doesn't have to be huge tax hikes, in fact, they should be rather small and calculated. But it should happen so we can pay down our debt more quickly.
  
  That is, of course, in addition to spending cuts which no one is saying aren't needed.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Like somebody else questioned before: Do you really think/believe/trust that if the government got its hands on more money that it won't squander it? Instead of paying down debt?
  
  I for one, have NO (zero, zilch, nada) belief. I don't trust it. It meaning government prudence.
• BGFalcons82

  

  I Wear Pants;740945 wrote:Cut spending + raise revenue.
  
  We don't just have a problem with a deficit we also have massive debt so simply balancing the budget via cutting spending isn't enough. We must also raise revenue. It doesn't have to be huge tax hikes, in fact, they should be rather small and calculated. But it should happen so we can pay down our debt more quickly.
  
  That is, of course, in addition to spending cuts which no one is saying aren't needed.

  
  You make it sound so easy. This is the first budget that I can remember in decades wherein spending "cuts" won the day...as trivial as they were. While I am extremely frustrated that the $100,000,000 cuts turned into an amount under $40,000,000 which is nothing more than accounting errors, I am also pleased that the discussion has pivoted to how much to cut rather than how much more to spend. This is a monumental shift in the Washington paradigm, but it is a baby step compared to what needs slashed and burned. The runaway train has been halted. Now, under Mr. Ryan, its time to turn it back to where it came from.
  
  How many times have you seen massive deep meaningful spending cuts associated with a tax hike? It's never happened in my lifetime, so it would be a first, yet here you are espousing that we need to sing kumbaya with more gusto this time and REALLY mean it. "Hey Charlie, come kick my ball....I promise not to move it this time....I REALLY mean it."
• I Wear Pants

  What part of "along with spending cuts" didn't you understand?
  
  If they would raise taxes and not continue to cut spending of course I'd be against it. Stop assuming I'm a fuggin retard.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  ptown_trojans_1;740909 wrote:Let me ask 1 question and it is a big theoretical one.
  If every D in the House and Senate said yes to everything in the Ryan plan, but said, the only way we can accept it is if we go back to the Clinton tax rates.
  
  Would R's not concede that point and say sure that it is the pragmatic thing to do?
  
  Not going to happen, but to me, it takes both approaches.

  I don't get the fascination with the Clinton tax rates - are you talking about reversion to the code at the time or just bumping up the marginals. If it is the latter the increased revenue wouldn't be a savior by any means, if it is the former it would just be another battle. There are many bipartisan reforms that are incredibly popular. I know I'd be pissed if we reverted back to the days of a severe marriage penalty. People enjoying increased child tax credits or people in low-tax states now able to itemize sales taxes would also be put off by their removals.
• BGFalcons82

  

  I Wear Pants;740960 wrote:What part of "along with spending cuts" didn't you understand?

  
  Because, until this week, spending cuts have never occurred. I'm glad you acknowledge they need to happen, but raising taxes only gives the federales more reasons not to cut. Gutless worm-like elitists are so engrained in bringing home the pork they just can't stop themselves.
• I Wear Pants

  BGFalcons82;740963 wrote:Because, until this week, spending cuts have never occurred. I'm glad you acknowledge they need to happen, but raising taxes only gives the federales more reasons not to cut. Gutless worm-like elitists are so engrained in bringing home the pork they just can't stop themselves.

  I'd argue that applies to people arguing for continuing tax cuts for super rich (not 250k, cutoff needs to be significantly higher and yes I realize this wouldn't be some magic elixir but like all of you are always saying we have to start somewhere and every little bit helps). And I don't buy that it would kill hiring because 1: what hiring? and 2: they're already posting record profits for the last year or two so the idea that taxes are hindering them is insane.
  
  I'm not looking for large or sweeping tax hikes but I think there are areas where they make sense and that obviously doing raises in the right spots isn't enough to fix anything by itself and shouldn't be done without spending cuts. However, I don't think we should wait until we cut spending to a point that we like because we all know that's going to take a while, decades maybe and that's too long to wait to fix the tax loopholes and places where the rates don't make sense. Ideally we'll have some reform that makes sense in the tax code (I don't think a flat tax makes mathematical sense from the things I've read though I'm not an expert on the subject (or anything really) ).
• majorspark

  

  Not one more damn dime until the feds prove they can control their spending. I don't care where it comes from. The rich, poor, middle class, big corp, tariffs, foreign governments, or the printing press. Its like giving the drug addict 10 bucks for food. After the nth time you know you are just enabling his addiction. This country has not yet experienced enough economic pain to force real change. When that day comes many of the assclowns in the federal government will be dead or drooling in their wheel chairs. For now fire up the printing presses.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "For now fire up the printing presses. "
  
  We already have with the quantitative easing process. Expect QE3 at a theater near you. Cost of attendance, your child's college education costing $100,000 a semester.
• majorspark

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;741048 wrote:"For now fire up the printing presses. "
  
  We already have with the quantitative easing process. Expect QE3 at a theater near you. Cost of attendance, your child's college education costing $100,000 a semester.

  
  You are right. I should say for now continue firing up the printing presses.
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark;741021 wrote:Not one more damn dime until the feds prove they can control their spending. I don't care where it comes from. The rich, poor, middle class, big corp, tariffs, foreign governments, or the printing press. Its like giving the drug addict 10 bucks for food. After the nth time you know you are just enabling his addiction. This country has not yet experienced enough economic pain to force real change. When that day comes many of the assclowns in the federal government will be dead or drooling in their wheel chairs. For now fire up the printing presses.

  Or you could you know, buy him $10 of food. Or give him $10 and force him to spend it on food.
  
  Saying "fuck it, nothing works" is not the solution.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  I Wear Pants;740960 wrote:What part of "along with spending cuts" didn't you understand?
  
  If they would raise taxes and not continue to cut spending of course I'd be against it. Stop assuming I'm a fuggin retard.

  
  Not until you stop posting like one.
  
  Seriously, look at history for your answer. We've NEVER seen a tax increase that wasn't used for spending (instead of the debt). So don't keep feeding the machine when you know what the result will be.
• I Wear Pants

  First, touche.
  
  Second, that's why I would make any increases have a limit on the length of time they're effective as well as tie any increases in taxes to mandatory cuts in spending. I don't think that's ridiculous.
  
  Will this happen? Hell no, but it's what needs to happen.
• believer

  

  As long as I've been interested in politics (4 decades?), I have NEVER seen a tax increase be used to pay down government debt. It has ALWAYS been used to "justify" even more government spending particularly at the Federal level.
  
  If we were to "go back to Clinton-era tax levels" as a "fix" for our nation's financial problems, can we also go back to being able to write-off a significant portion of interest on unsecured debt (credit cards, etc.?) like we once enjoyed? Anyone remember those days? Hell they now want to take the mortgage deduction away.
  
  Part of the reason those deductions were eliminated was to increase tax "revenues" - as I recall - to help the Feds "balance the budget". LMAO That's worked out well hasn't it? Same thing would happen if the mortgage deduction gets yanked.
  
  When the Feds make it the law of the land that any type of tax increase (direct or back door) MUST be routed to paying down the nation's debt, then I'll listen to the "we gotta increase taxes to fix the mess" proponents. I don't think I'm in any immediate danger of having to listen though.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  believer;741137 wrote:As long as I've been interested in politics (4 decades?), I have NEVER seen a tax increase be used to pay down government debt. It has ALWAYS been used to "justify" even more government spending particularly at the Federal level.
  
  If we were to "go back to Clinton-era tax levels" as a "fix" for our nation's financial problems, can we also go back to being able to write-off a significant portion of interest on unsecured debt (credit cards, etc.?) like we once enjoyed? Anyone remember those days? Hell they now want to take the mortgage deduction away.
  
  Part of the reason those deductions were eliminated was to increase tax "revenues" - as I recall - to help the Feds "balance the budget". LMAO That's worked out well hasn't it? Same thing would happen if the mortgage deduction gets yanked.
  
  When the Feds make it the law of the land that any type of tax increase (direct or back door) MUST be routed to paying down the nation's debt, then I'll listen to the "we gotta increase taxes to fix the mess" proponents. I don't think I'm in any immediate danger of having to listen though.

  
  Totally agree.
• jhay78

  

  Believer is right- taxpaying citizens do not have to answer to the government for what they do with their own money. It's the other way around, at least in our country- the government answers to its citizens for how it handles their money. So until they prove they can consistently run balanced budgets, they have no moral ground upon which to justify tax hikes.
  
  And btw, Obama's speech yesterday was pathetic. Oozing with class warfare, typical campaign-sounding stuff. Looked like he threw it together at the last minute.
• Thread Bomber

  

  It's all a matter of semantics. If the Bush/Obama tax cuts were allowed to expire, Is that a tax increase?
  
  Tax cuts and spending all add to the deficit, why doesn't the right call it as such?
  
  Everything should be on the table. Including defense,Socialist security, Medikare and medikade.
  
  The idiots in Washington have let it come to this, and in order to get out of this mess, someone has to make some unpopular decisions and fall on the sword.
  
  Ryan's proposal and BHO's are both equally flawed and worthless.