2012-2021 Budget

• Footwedge

  tk421;822005 wrote:Take a look at historical tax revenues as a percentage of GDP. The highest this has EVER been since 1934 is 20.9% of GDP. IF you have the exact same rate, tax revenues would only be 3.087 Trillion dollars at 21% of a GDP of 14.7 Trillion (2010). The federal government is set to spend around 3.6 Trillion dollars in 2011, so you obviously have a spending problem here. The highest percentage of tax revenue as % of GDP WILL NOT cover the spending for this year.

  
  
  
  The GDP includes government spending in the Gross Domestic Product calcs. Silly, I know. So if the government spends 4 trillion, then voilla!!...the GDP goes up 4 tril as well. Business expansion here in the states are a thing of the past anyway. Neither the Dems nor the GOP will allow the country to evolve into a 3rd world status under their own watch. As a result, the artificial inflation of our economy...through deficit spending will continue on forever....or until we declare national bankruptcy.
  
  And it makes absolutely no difference who is in the White House or who controlls the Congress.
• dwccrew

  

  Footwedge;822532 wrote:With all due respects to you Mr. Crew......if you eliminate the minimum wage law then you will have plenty of people working at 3 bucks an hour.....or a boatload more people on welfare. Our system today is already designed to reap an end game of 2 classes....and 2 classes only. History over the past 30 years or so has proven that. It is just a matter of time. You eliminate the minimum wage laws, then you are simply hastening the process.

  
  I respectfully disagree. I believe that if you eliminate the minimum wage laws and let the free market dictate what a job should be paid, we'd be better off. By setting a minimum wage, you are encouraging employers to pay people peanuts. No one would will work for $3 an hour, they'd be better off on welfare. So if no one would work for $3 an hour, the employer would have to offer better compensation to attract workers IMO.
• believer

  

  dwccrew;822736 wrote:I respectfully disagree. I believe that if you eliminate the minimum wage laws and let the free market dictate what a job should be paid, we'd be better off. By setting a minimum wage, you are encouraging employers to pay people peanuts. No one would will work for $3 an hour, they'd be better off on welfare. So if no one would work for $3 an hour, the employer would have to offer better compensation to attract workers IMO.

  You mean let the market dictate the price - in this case wages? NAW...sounds too much like eeeeevil capitalism to me.
• coyotes22

  

  coyotes22;822357 wrote:How out in right field, and stupid is this idea, to increasing GDP and collecting more taxes, without raising taxes:
  
  Taxes- Cut the National Minimum wage back from $7.25 to $6. This allows for employers to hire more people. Lowers unemployment, and at the same time, increases tax revenue. (because more people that have a job, more money comes in, via taxes,,, just so the liberals are clear on that) This may also help fix the GDP----
  
  GDP- Get the Governments hand out of the Housing cookie jar. Let the banks and Mortgage companies offer houses at cheaper interest rates, without predatory lending. The Government should not have control of Mortgages anyway. This is a bad thing, as now the Gov. owns houses and land, that they should not own. If we can get more people jobs, and they buy houses, the GDP goes up. The housing markets is what, 17-18% of the GDP?
  
  Lower Min. Wage, quit telling companies and businesses how to operate (because we all know how the Gov runs the post office), get the housing market back on track. All this, plus cut more Gov. spending.

  So the only thing wrong with this post, is that more min wage jobs, does not increase tax revenue? Can we agree that it would lower unemployment?
  
  What about the GDP? How wrong am I in my housing thinking? Can the housing crisis ever be fixed? How can we fix it? Or is it not broken at all?
• I Wear Pants

  jmog;822390 wrote:I can buy that, cut spending leave taxes where they are.
  
  
  If they can balance the budget quickly (year or 2) by doing that, at that point I'd be more than willing to accept tax increases if in the law for the tax increase it states it is going to pay off the debt (not deficit).
  
  I think you would find most conservatives would be willing to go with that.
  
  I also don't think most conservatives are asking for tax cuts right now, they are saying leave the tax levels alone, right where they are.

  That's the type of thing I'd be for. I'm not a fan of taxes just to be a fan of them because I don't like not keeping my money anymore than everyone else. It's just that I would much rather have a higher tax rate and a solvent country than a lower one and a country in the shitter. Of course the crux of this whole thing would be lowering spending through various means and then using current/any new taxes to pay for debt. Which is the difficult part.
• I Wear Pants

  believer;822755 wrote:You mean let the market dictate the price - in this case wages? NAW...sounds too much like eeeeevil capitalism to me.

  Yeah but there are some very real problems with capitalism even though parts of it are excellent (competition brings out the best in many aspects). You get rid of a minimum wage and I guarantee the disparity in wealth gets even worse than it already is.
• believer

  

  I Wear Pants;823494 wrote:Yeah but there are some very real problems with capitalism even though parts of it are excellent (competition brings out the best in many aspects). You get rid of a minimum wage and I guarantee the disparity in wealth gets even worse than it already is.

  Why do I get nervous when liberals state theories as fact and then indulge in class warfare to justify their beliefs?
• coyotes22

  

  believer;823527 wrote:Why do I get nervous when liberals state theories as fact and then indulge in class warfare to justify their beliefs?

  
  Because you are a rightwing coook homophobe racisist faminist capitaliststic jerk that thinks smaller government is the answer!
  
  SMDH
• coyotes22

  

  coyotes22;823530 wrote:Because you are a rightwing coook homophobe racisist faminist capitaliststic jerk that thinks smaller government is the answer!
  
  SMDH

  
  Oh, and all you do is cling to your religion and guns.
• believer

  

  coyotes22;823531 wrote:Oh, and all you do is cling to your religion and guns.

  Oh yeah....I forgot.
  
• coyotes22

  

  believer;823535 wrote:Oh yeah....I forgot.
  

  
  I am so making that my avatar after this sunday
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;823494 wrote:You get rid of a minimum wage and I guarantee the disparity in wealth gets even worse than it already is.

  Just add another $10/hr to the minimum wage and narrow that disparity a little. Or better yet add another $20/hr and eliminate poverty once and for all.
• I Wear Pants

  I didn't claim we should do that at all. I'm not anti-wealth. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.
  
  I'm just not of the opinion that the minimum wage is a bad idea.
  

  believer;823527 wrote:Why do I get nervous when liberals state theories as fact and then indulge in class warfare to justify their beliefs?

  When did I state anything as fact? I guaranteed something. Doesn't mean it's a fact. The burger I just ate came with a quality guarantee but it was pretty shitty.
  
  Also, what class warfare did I use? Is there not a very large disparity in wealth in our country? Do you dispute that or something?
• believer

  

  I Wear Pants;823581 wrote:Also, what class warfare did I use? Is there not a very large disparity in wealth in our country? Do you dispute that or something?

  There is, has been, and always will be a "wealth disparity" among people. Just a simple fact of human history.
  
  Frankly I get tired of hearing about it from socialists who are constantly reminding us that there are wealthy people vs. not so wealthy people and that government must intervene to "level the playing field" including such tactics as minimum wage laws.
  
  The difference between the "wealth gap" evident in prior generations and the wealth gap Americans face is that our "poor" are wealthy compared to the world's truly poor. The standard of living nearly all Americans enjoy is directly attributable to a free market, capitalistic economy.
  
  I've said this so many times before but it's worth repeating now: Despite capitalism's obvious flaws, this economic system has provided far more people with elevated quality of life than socialism ever hopes to achieve.
  
  This is evident by the failed socialist experiments seen in the collapse of the Soviet Union, its eastern bloc satellite states, the move towards capitalist principles by Communist China, and the faltering economies of several socialist-based countries in the European Union.
  
  I'm convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that every time the government tries to "help" people through socialist/unionist policies like minimum wage laws, the more people it actually ends up hurting.
  
  Bottom line: The more we keep government out of the way of free enterprise and the folks who control the purse strings, the more likely far more people will benefit from it.
• I Wear Pants

  Sure, factories and such were much better places when people could be paid pennies.
  
  The free market works in a ton of situations, others not so much because people are greedy and stupid. I don't see the problem with saying "no, we're better than that. The minimum you can pay a person is xx dollars".
  
  The problem is not that there are wealthy people and I said "very large disparity" for a reason. Of course some will have more than others especially in a competitive situation like most business markets are because some are more talented/harder working than others. The problem is that there is an ever shrinking percentage of wealthy people who are in control of an ever growing percentage of the wealth and thus power in the country.
• sleeper

  

  coyotes22;823480 wrote:So the only thing wrong with this post, is that more min wage jobs, does not increase tax revenue? Can we agree that it would lower unemployment?

  
  It won't really increase federal tax revenue from income, but it does have effects that will result in increased revenue. For example, more people working = more people having disposable income = more people buying stuff(sales tax, gas tax, excise tax, etc..) = more people getting hired to support the new level of spending(possible tax revenue).
  
  Minimum wage laws are retarded, and I hope they become a thing of the past.
• coyotes22

  

  sleeper;823725 wrote:It won't really increase federal tax revenue from income, but it does have effects that will result in increased revenue. For example, more people working = more people having disposable income = more people buying stuff(sales tax, gas tax, excise tax, etc..) = more people getting hired to support the new level of spending(possible tax revenue).
  
  Minimum wage laws are retarded, and I hope they become a thing of the past.

  That makes too much sense, tho.
  
  
• I Wear Pants

  You get rid of minimum wage and you'll need to do something to lower higher education costs.
• dwccrew

  

  I Wear Pants;824370 wrote:You get rid of minimum wage and you'll need to do something to lower higher education costs.

  
  Get rid of labor unions associated with the universities.
• believer

  

  dwccrew;824376 wrote:Get rid of labor unions associated with the universities.

  Or eliminate a few over-paid tenured leftist professors?
• sleeper

  

  I Wear Pants;824370 wrote:You get rid of minimum wage and you'll need to do something to lower higher education costs.

  
  Why?
• coyotes22

  

  sleeper;824520 wrote:Why?

  
  Hey! Here's a crazy Idea,,,,,, Stop giving illegals FREE education, then it wont be so high for the kids that grow up here, LEGALLY!!!!! No?
• Manhattan Buckeye

  believer;824418 wrote:Or eliminate a few over-paid tenured leftist professors?

  
  I don't think the political disposition matters, I went to a public grad school thus I can see their salaries - nothing short of shocking. Administrative assistants are making $80K (plus their state pension) and some of the senior profs are pulling in $350K. There is no way the private sector would support that compensation.
• believer

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;824529 wrote:I don't think the political disposition matters, I went to a public grad school thus I can see their salaries - nothing short of shocking. Administrative assistants are making $80K (plus their state pension) and some of the senior profs are pulling in $350K. There is no way the private sector would support that compensation.

  Agreed, but most still lean left. It's a therapy thing for me. lol
• gut

  Manhattan Buckeye;824529 wrote:I don't think the political disposition matters, I went to a public grad school thus I can see their salaries - nothing short of shocking. Administrative assistants are making $80K (plus their state pension) and some of the senior profs are pulling in $350K. There is no way the private sector would support that compensation.

  Haha...MBA and JD profs make bank, and most have no practical business experienece....I suppose they have that in common with Washington