Harrisburg mayor asks God to balance the budget

Keep giving tax breaks to the rich. Keep the salaries of the upper management going up and up while they lay off the workers. Keep letting people go bankrupt when their health goes south to make sure the insurance companies and big pharma make record profits. Keep giving tax breaks to big oil while they pollute the earth and make record profits quarter after quarter. Keep giving corporation tax breaks to help them make their growth numbers look like they justify why they get diamond encrusted golden parachutes and the workers get screwed and accused of being lazy and stupid for receiving assistance. Keep giving breaks to Wall Street while they openly steal money from 401ks. Keep it up.

Oh, and pray to an old man in the sky to take care of business and balance budgets instead of doing what it takes and not worrying about getting reelected.

Like I said, "Keep doin' what yer doin'..." Please....

CriticalBill wrote: This problem can't be solved by just taking money from the rich. There has to be an attractive environment for businesses to hire so people can get back to work. Full employment will bring the economy back, income redistribution will just prolong the inevitable collapse of our economy. You can take from the rich and give to the poor which will boost the economy in the short run, but how many times can you take until the well runs dry or the "rich" money moves elsewhere?

I don't think anyone has suggested that the problem can be solved "by just taking from the rich"....We need to do everything we can to reduce our deficit, and everyone needs to contribute to that effort. This means in spending cuts and revenue increases.....letting the Bush tax cuts expire on wealthier Americans, and closing some of the loopholes corporations use to reduce their taxes, is just one part of doing this, but every bit DOES help, contrary to what some may believe.

LadyJazzer wrote: You keep asking "What's YOUR plan?"... How many times do we have to articulate what our plan would be? It's been articulated over and over again. You don't like it. OK, fine. But stop asking "What's your plan?" when it's been stated over and over again. Either your reading-comprehension skills are in question, or you aren't capable of understanding.

Indeed - let's follow in the footsteps of Greece. It's working out so well for them after all.

The plan of raising taxes on the rich won't generate the needed revenue, it never does, and it never will because the one thing experience has shown is that when the rich are taxed more they avoid the behavior which subjects them to the higher taxes. Remember the Clinton luxury tax? I'm sure the 15,000 or so tradesmen who lost their jobs when the rich stopped buying and refurbishing so many luxury items would agree that it was a good idea. Mercedes and BMW sales dropped 20% - and displaced a lot of workers who sold and serviced vehicles that weren't being sold. This is a prime example of why raising the tax rates never results in the revenue that the supporters of redistribution of wealth predict will result from the tax hike. There are countless other examples of this phenomena, but for some reason the regressives keep telling themselves, and us, that it will be different this time around.

The federal government has collected about 17% of the economy in taxes on a routine basis since the end of WWII. Didn't matter how low or how high the tax rates were, or whether the privilege to be employed/have employee taxes are 7% or 15% of wages, the receipts end up being 17% of the nation's economy. That's the most they can expect to collect on a regular basis. They aren't going to collect 25% of the economy in taxes, it simply isn't going to happen. Rather than think you are going to somehow double the tax revenues by raising tax rates and eliminating loopholes, why not take the path that logic leads you to and cut the budget to 17% of the current economy, cut the tax rates to reward the risk of capital and grow the economy to the point where 17% of it yields $3.8 Trillion that you wish to spend. I know it's logical and that can't be allowed in regresseve policy, but I think it's time for you to seriously think about adopting it before our treasury notes get downgraded and we end up having to pay 20% interest or more like Greece does at the moment to entice someone to take the risk of purchasing them. Especially given the fact that the "trust funds" for Social Security and Medicare that everyone of you is saying are secure contain nothing but treasury notes. Those programs go bankrupt overnight if the holders of those notes start demanding 20% interest to roll them over.

Gee, the standard Constitutionalist/Federalist, Sovereign Citizen, Constitution Party , LawAndLiberty , ReasonOfFreedom , PoliticsOfLiberty , TeaPartyPatriot excursions into what you THINK the Constitution says, or should have said. The Supreme Court interprets, and has done so for a little over 230 years. Their interpretations of what it means are what is important, and not the libertarian nonsense of the radical right. The "general welfare" clause was not "invented", but obviously it has been interpreted to mean something you don't agree with.

Sorry, but my bullsh*t-detector has been tweaked to recognize and ignore the standard "general welfare is a lie" rants...

PrintSmith wrote: Especially given the fact that the "trust funds" for Social Security and Medicare that everyone of you is saying are secure contain nothing but treasury notes. Those programs go bankrupt overnight if the holders of those notes start demanding 20% interest to roll them over.

PS I usually agree with you, but do you actually believe the trust funds contain real Treasury notes? They are non-marketable IOUs, with no value at all. Only the "promise" of future income taxes to pay the IOUs. There is no holder of those notes, they are not the same as marketable bonds. If you wanted to "cash one in" I guess you could go to the bond market and borrow new money from investors to deposit in the trust fund, but the trust fund money is not real.

There are two ways to get back the trust fund money which has been spent.
1. Collect new income taxes in the future and pay back the IOUs
2. Issue more new federal debt on top of the annual deficit and borrow the money from private investors at the going rate.

archer wrote:

CriticalBill wrote: This problem can't be solved by just taking money from the rich. There has to be an attractive environment for businesses to hire so people can get back to work. Full employment will bring the economy back, income redistribution will just prolong the inevitable collapse of our economy. You can take from the rich and give to the poor which will boost the economy in the short run, but how many times can you take until the well runs dry or the "rich" money moves elsewhere?

I don't think anyone has suggested that the problem can be solved "by just taking from the rich"....We need to do everything we can to reduce our deficit, and everyone needs to contribute to that effort. This means in spending cuts and revenue increases.....letting the Bush tax cuts expire on wealthier Americans, and closing some of the loopholes corporations use to reduce their taxes, is just one part of doing this, but every bit DOES help, contrary to what some may believe.

If your ship is sinking, bailing with a tea cup may make you feel better, but your ship still sinks.

Arguing with your fellow shipmates in where to bail doesnt do much either. the conservative mantra of do it my way or we wont agree to do anything at all is guaranteed to sink us.