To put our debt in real numbers....

Rockdoc Franz wrote: Would it not be nice if we can simply go to our employer and tell him "I want a raise because I owe a lot of money" and force them to do it? That is what raising taxes is about.

You guys always talk about the debt as though it wasn't ours. It is. We elected the guys who kept adding to it and also the guys who figured they'd not only add to it but get us in deeper.

We cheered it all on. I know it's difficult for people to accept that, but it's true. We each have programs and wars we don't approve of, but all of us approved of SOME of it, and enough of us approved of ALL of it that it got spent.

The reason it is so difficult to cut the budget is the very same reason it grew. All of us have something in there that we want and don't want to see cut. Some people wouldn't care if 45 million people stopped receiving food stamps but would go crazy is anyone suggested slashing 50% of the military budget. And others hold just the opposite view. That makes it darned hard to seriously propose making cuts deep enough to make much difference in the debt.

I guess what I am saying is that almost everybody would like to see a lower federal budget but the reality is, no matter what you cut, if it's big enough to make an actual impact, it's going to make a whole bunch of voters howling mad. So knowing human nature as I do, I don't think it's realistic to talk about cutting the budget as being "the answer", because it simply isn't going to happen. No matter who is elected.

So since it isn't going to happen, what else is there to do?

Again, realisitically, the options aren't great. Raise taxes (which might or might not make enough difference in revenue to help), inflate the hell out of the currency and bascially deliberately crash the economy in hopes we get to start with a new slate, or default with basically the same result as inflation.

Rockdoc Franz wrote:

SS109 wrote: The day of reckoning isn't here yet for the US, we are still selling 10 year treasuries paying off at 2.5%!

But check out what Greek and Ireland are going through. IMF types come in and take control of the budget, cutting here and there and increasing taxes.
Riots are expensive!

Don't we want to get control right now with reasonable tax increases and increasing spending cuts?

Who are you going to tax that can afford the increase and how will that make a significant impact? I suppose my thought is that if you can reduce unemployment you do realize an increase in revenue, just like when your family goes off an pitches in extra funds to raise the budget. Frankly, while your asking everyone to take cuts (including those on fixed incomes) would it not be best to give them a chance to adjust (if possible) to the new reality? Perhaps after a period of some unspecified time a greater tax burden across the board is possible.

If we continue down the socialistic path of trying to provide the necessities of life for all citizens, we will end up just like Greece. Look at the demands those idiots make. Their government is broke, and they demand their social benefits remain in place? You can't be serious? It seems that is the kind of mentality such programs lead to eventually. If you want to give me 5k every month as a retirement benefit because I'm over 65, why would I reject it? I'd be a fool. Furthermore, we all know that we live at the limits of our income. If we make 25k a year we manage to survive. If its 50k 100k or 200k a year we still manage to survive. It's the definition of survive that gets distorted. Once used to easy living, it is very difficult to scale back, but not impossible. Frankly, I think some would need to be forced into scaling back.

I am just not understanding the mentality that says why bother letting the tax cuts laspse on the wealthier Americans because that alone won't reduce the deficit. Of course it won't, but along with other measures it can make a significent difference. Why not use every tool we have to bring down the deficit?

I'm sure you are right Rockdoc, and many in this country will have to adjust to a new reality, but the adjustment is all being done in the middle and lower classes.....when do the wealthy get to adjust? according to conservatives they shouldn't have to. Your earlier suggestion that a revenue increase is like asking your boss for a raise to meet your obligations is wrong......it's like going out and getting a second job so you can pay down your debt faster than you can if you only worked your regular job. Lots of families do just that, and it's time our government started looking for extra revenue to pay off our deficit as quickly as possible.

Spending cuts will never be enough all by themselves. Conservatives are going to have to bite the bullet, hold their noses, whatever it takes and vote for revenue increases or this debt will still be there when my grandkids are adults.

archer wrote:

Rockdoc Franz wrote:

SS109 wrote: The day of reckoning isn't here yet for the US, we are still selling 10 year treasuries paying off at 2.5%!

But check out what Greek and Ireland are going through. IMF types come in and take control of the budget, cutting here and there and increasing taxes.
Riots are expensive!

Don't we want to get control right now with reasonable tax increases and increasing spending cuts?

Who are you going to tax that can afford the increase and how will that make a significant impact? I suppose my thought is that if you can reduce unemployment you do realize an increase in revenue, just like when your family goes off an pitches in extra funds to raise the budget. Frankly, while your asking everyone to take cuts (including those on fixed incomes) would it not be best to give them a chance to adjust (if possible) to the new reality? Perhaps after a period of some unspecified time a greater tax burden across the board is possible.

If we continue down the socialistic path of trying to provide the necessities of life for all citizens, we will end up just like Greece. Look at the demands those idiots make. Their government is broke, and they demand their social benefits remain in place? You can't be serious? It seems that is the kind of mentality such programs lead to eventually. If you want to give me 5k every month as a retirement benefit because I'm over 65, why would I reject it? I'd be a fool. Furthermore, we all know that we live at the limits of our income. If we make 25k a year we manage to survive. If its 50k 100k or 200k a year we still manage to survive. It's the definition of survive that gets distorted. Once used to easy living, it is very difficult to scale back, but not impossible. Frankly, I think some would need to be forced into scaling back.

I am just not understanding the mentality that says why bother letting the tax cuts laspse on the wealthier Americans because that alone won't reduce the deficit. Of course it won't, but along with other measures it can make a significent difference. Why not use every tool we have to bring down the deficit?

I'm sure you are right Rockdoc, and many in this country will have to adjust to a new reality, but the adjustment is all being done in the middle and lower classes.....when do the wealthy get to adjust? according to conservatives they shouldn't have to. Your earlier suggestion that a revenue increase is like asking your boss for a raise to meet your obligations is wrong......it's like going out and getting a second job so you can pay down your debt faster than you can if you only worked your regular job. Lots of families do just that, and it's time our government started looking for extra revenue to pay off our deficit as quickly as possible.

Spending cuts will never be enough all by themselves. Conservatives are going to have to bite the bullet, hold their noses, whatever it takes and vote for revenue increases or this debt will still be there when my grandkids are adults.

Archer, early on in an earlier post I agreed to closing of all loopholes in the tax structure whom ever that might involve. I also stated that we do away with special interest groups, in other words. make everyone accountable.

I disagree with you in comparing a tax increase to getting a second job. How realistic is that? How many can pull an 18 to 20 hour day and do a second job? Few. The only way is to have other family members involved, ie. the unemployed. Adding them to the tax rolls as opposed to the welfare rolls. is a positive step forward. BUT, if there are so many who are without a job now, how is a family or a person who already has a job going to find a second job??? So, many families used to do that when jobs were reasily to be found. Let's face it. those jobs are mainly menial labor and do not pay much. How you increase jobs is another question entirely and one that likely has as many proposal as there are politicians.

Supposedly federal spending has doubled in the past 10 years, so we really need to take a lot at how much of that can be cut. But like AV said, the devil is in the details when it comes to eliminating any programs. Hell, Sen Reid was defending federal subsidies on cowboy poetry. Really? I realize cutting federal sponsorship of cowboy poetry isn't going to make everything all right, but it can't hurt.

I have seen the same behavior in people with massive debt issues.
"You are 100K in the hole and you are going out to dinner?"
"$30 more means nothing when you are as bad off as I am"

Rockdoc Franz wrote:

archer wrote:

Rockdoc Franz wrote:

SS109 wrote: The day of reckoning isn't here yet for the US, we are still selling 10 year treasuries paying off at 2.5%!

But check out what Greek and Ireland are going through. IMF types come in and take control of the budget, cutting here and there and increasing taxes.
Riots are expensive!

Don't we want to get control right now with reasonable tax increases and increasing spending cuts?

Who are you going to tax that can afford the increase and how will that make a significant impact? I suppose my thought is that if you can reduce unemployment you do realize an increase in revenue, just like when your family goes off an pitches in extra funds to raise the budget. Frankly, while your asking everyone to take cuts (including those on fixed incomes) would it not be best to give them a chance to adjust (if possible) to the new reality? Perhaps after a period of some unspecified time a greater tax burden across the board is possible.

If we continue down the socialistic path of trying to provide the necessities of life for all citizens, we will end up just like Greece. Look at the demands those idiots make. Their government is broke, and they demand their social benefits remain in place? You can't be serious? It seems that is the kind of mentality such programs lead to eventually. If you want to give me 5k every month as a retirement benefit because I'm over 65, why would I reject it? I'd be a fool. Furthermore, we all know that we live at the limits of our income. If we make 25k a year we manage to survive. If its 50k 100k or 200k a year we still manage to survive. It's the definition of survive that gets distorted. Once used to easy living, it is very difficult to scale back, but not impossible. Frankly, I think some would need to be forced into scaling back.

I am just not understanding the mentality that says why bother letting the tax cuts laspse on the wealthier Americans because that alone won't reduce the deficit. Of course it won't, but along with other measures it can make a significent difference. Why not use every tool we have to bring down the deficit?

I'm sure you are right Rockdoc, and many in this country will have to adjust to a new reality, but the adjustment is all being done in the middle and lower classes.....when do the wealthy get to adjust? according to conservatives they shouldn't have to. Your earlier suggestion that a revenue increase is like asking your boss for a raise to meet your obligations is wrong......it's like going out and getting a second job so you can pay down your debt faster than you can if you only worked your regular job. Lots of families do just that, and it's time our government started looking for extra revenue to pay off our deficit as quickly as possible.

Spending cuts will never be enough all by themselves. Conservatives are going to have to bite the bullet, hold their noses, whatever it takes and vote for revenue increases or this debt will still be there when my grandkids are adults.

Archer, early on in an earlier post I agreed to closing of all loopholes in the tax structure whom ever that might involve. I also stated that we do away with special interest groups, in other words. make everyone accountable.

I disagree with you in comparing a tax increase to getting a second job. How realistic is that? How many can pull an 18 to 20 hour day and do a second job? Few. The only way is to have other family members involved, ie. the unemployed. Adding them to the tax rolls as opposed to the welfare rolls. is a positive step forward. BUT, if there are so many who are without a job now, how is a family or a person who already has a job going to find a second job??? So, many families used to do that when jobs were reasily to be found. Let's face it. those jobs are mainly menial labor and do not pay much. How you increase jobs is another question entirely and one that likely has as many proposal as there are politicians.

I think you have a little apples and oranges going on there Rockdoc. The analogy is just that.....an analogy to put things in perspective relative to government increasing revenue. I didn't intend for you to take the "get a second job" and use that as a recommendation to the public. It was meant to illustrate that the government needs to look for more revenue in new places rather than to keep going back to the middle class over and over again. It's time those who have benefitted so much from what this country has to offer, and have been given some pretty preferential treatment, start sharing in the solutions........I know the middle class has felt the pain of a slow economy.......seniors have felt the pain in lost investments, higher costs, and no increase in SS.......the poor always feel the pain, but the wealthy are doing better than ever. They are the priviledged class, and the conservatives are either unwilling, or afraid, to ask them to share in reviving this economy.

archer wrote:

Rockdoc Franz wrote:

archer wrote:

Rockdoc Franz wrote:

SS109 wrote: The day of reckoning isn't here yet for the US, we are still selling 10 year treasuries paying off at 2.5%!

But check out what Greek and Ireland are going through. IMF types come in and take control of the budget, cutting here and there and increasing taxes.
Riots are expensive!

Don't we want to get control right now with reasonable tax increases and increasing spending cuts?

Who are you going to tax that can afford the increase and how will that make a significant impact? I suppose my thought is that if you can reduce unemployment you do realize an increase in revenue, just like when your family goes off an pitches in extra funds to raise the budget. Frankly, while your asking everyone to take cuts (including those on fixed incomes) would it not be best to give them a chance to adjust (if possible) to the new reality? Perhaps after a period of some unspecified time a greater tax burden across the board is possible.

If we continue down the socialistic path of trying to provide the necessities of life for all citizens, we will end up just like Greece. Look at the demands those idiots make. Their government is broke, and they demand their social benefits remain in place? You can't be serious? It seems that is the kind of mentality such programs lead to eventually. If you want to give me 5k every month as a retirement benefit because I'm over 65, why would I reject it? I'd be a fool. Furthermore, we all know that we live at the limits of our income. If we make 25k a year we manage to survive. If its 50k 100k or 200k a year we still manage to survive. It's the definition of survive that gets distorted. Once used to easy living, it is very difficult to scale back, but not impossible. Frankly, I think some would need to be forced into scaling back.

I am just not understanding the mentality that says why bother letting the tax cuts laspse on the wealthier Americans because that alone won't reduce the deficit. Of course it won't, but along with other measures it can make a significent difference. Why not use every tool we have to bring down the deficit?

I'm sure you are right Rockdoc, and many in this country will have to adjust to a new reality, but the adjustment is all being done in the middle and lower classes.....when do the wealthy get to adjust? according to conservatives they shouldn't have to. Your earlier suggestion that a revenue increase is like asking your boss for a raise to meet your obligations is wrong......it's like going out and getting a second job so you can pay down your debt faster than you can if you only worked your regular job. Lots of families do just that, and it's time our government started looking for extra revenue to pay off our deficit as quickly as possible.

Spending cuts will never be enough all by themselves. Conservatives are going to have to bite the bullet, hold their noses, whatever it takes and vote for revenue increases or this debt will still be there when my grandkids are adults.

Archer, early on in an earlier post I agreed to closing of all loopholes in the tax structure whom ever that might involve. I also stated that we do away with special interest groups, in other words. make everyone accountable.

I disagree with you in comparing a tax increase to getting a second job. How realistic is that? How many can pull an 18 to 20 hour day and do a second job? Few. The only way is to have other family members involved, ie. the unemployed. Adding them to the tax rolls as opposed to the welfare rolls. is a positive step forward. BUT, if there are so many who are without a job now, how is a family or a person who already has a job going to find a second job??? So, many families used to do that when jobs were reasily to be found. Let's face it. those jobs are mainly menial labor and do not pay much. How you increase jobs is another question entirely and one that likely has as many proposal as there are politicians.

I think you have a little apples and oranges going on there Rockdoc. The analogy is just that.....an analogy to put things in perspective relative to government increasing revenue. I didn't intend for you to take the "get a second job" and use that as a recommendation to the public. It was meant to illustrate that the government needs to look for more revenue in new places rather than to keep going back to the middle class over and over again. It's time those who have benefitted so much from what this country has to offer, and have been given some pretty preferential treatment, start sharing in the solutions........I know the middle class has felt the pain of a slow economy.......seniors have felt the pain in lost investments, higher costs, and no increase in SS.......the poor always feel the pain, but the wealthy are doing better than ever. They are the priviledged class, and the conservatives are either unwilling, or afraid, to ask them to share in reviving this economy.

So since AV isn't answering me. How much is raising taxes going to effect our economy and how much revenue will it raise? And if you don't know, then why are you for it?

The Viking wrote: So since AV isn't answering me. How much is raising taxes going to effect our economy and how much revenue will it raise? And if you don't know, then why are you for it?

I'll answer it for you, Viking. Raising taxes increases revenues to a point but it is not a simple dollar for dollar increase. At some point high taxes are a disincentive to business growth, although determing exactly where the point that a tax increase becomes counter-productive is not easily predicted. Carefully structured tax increases have less effect on business growth than many anti-tax proponenets will admit. Exactly how much revenue it would raise is also not a question anyone can answer because it depends on a lot of other factors. Like whether the economy is recovering or deflating, whether there is inflation in the picture, whether unemployment is rising or decreasing. No one can predict those factors in the future, so no one can tell you exactly how much revenue increase you would receive from a tax increase. If they say otherwise they are bald-faced liars.

AspenValley wrote:

The Viking wrote: So since AV isn't answering me. How much is raising taxes going to effect our economy and how much revenue will it raise? And if you don't know, then why are you for it?

I'll answer it for you, Viking. Raising taxes increases revenues to a point but it is not a simple dollar for dollar increase. At some point high taxes are a disincentive to business growth, although determing exactly where the point that a tax increase becomes counter-productive is not easily predicted. Carefully structured tax increases have less effect on business growth than many anti-tax proponenets will admit. Exactly how much revenue it would raise is also not a question anyone can answer because it depends on a lot of other factors. Like whether the economy is recovering or deflating, whether there is inflation in the picture, whether unemployment is rising or decreasing. No one can predict those factors in the future, so no one can tell you exactly how much revenue increase you would receive from a tax increase. If they say otherwise they are bald-faced liars.

So with spending it is a number that we DO know. We CAN if we want to sacrifice, cut $3-5 trillion. With tax increases, the highest number I have seen is $300 billion more in revenue over 10 years which is $30 billion per year IF all the pieces fall in place and revenue isn't decreased because of becoming a disincentive to business growth. So WHY are Obama and many libs so stuck on fighting for that spit in a bucket? Now closing loopholes which the Republicans are for also would make a larger impact. People need to stop throwing all their eggs in the higher taxes basket when it is such a small number compared to the debt and it is so random that it may not even raise revenue. It is all pushed just to appease the left's base voters with no real value.

So back to the original numbers which show how much each of us make and owe in annual debt and credit card debt. That $30 billion per year the libs are fighting for would only change the $58,000 by $100 per year. Yet they are willing to throw that in everywhere to hold bills hostage for $100 per person difference. Makes no sense to most people.

If the US Government was a family, they would be earning $58,000 a year, spending $75,000 a year, and would have $327,000 in credit card debt. They have just decided to implement budget cuts to reduce their spending … to $72,000 a year.