You might be a tea partier and not know it

Ok archer what second job do you suggest the federal government get to deal with this major problem. So far it is only stealing from the American public. I get his post.

archer wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Good point Rick, what Archer is actually saying, if you don't have enough money for the house budget, threaten your neighbors with guns and locking them up in your basement until the budget balances.
Brilliant solution, don't have enough? Don't decrease spending, increase your own stealing.

Neither you nor Rick have a clue what I'm saying because you can't see beyond your own bias. Any good financial planner or CPA will explain the two sides of the ledger to you, and how to balance a budget by balancing BOTH sides of the ledger. The family can increase revenue with a 2nd job, our getting the education for a better job, but all you can see are the absurd examples meant to insult and demean a poster, me, and not actually discuss the issue.

Not sure why anyone bothers to try and have a conversation here.

Yep, people like LJ and Archer believe that government has the right to 90% of your income if you are richer than them.

archer wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Good point Rick, what Archer is actually saying, if you don't have enough money for the house budget, threaten your neighbors with guns and locking them up in your basement until the budget balances.
Brilliant solution, don't have enough? Don't decrease spending, increase your own stealing.

Neither you nor Rick have a clue what I'm saying because you can't see beyond your own bias. Any good financial planner or CPA will explain the two sides of the ledger to you, and how to balance a budget by balancing BOTH sides of the ledger. The family can increase revenue with a 2nd job, our getting the education for a better job, but all you can see are the absurd examples meant to insult and demean a poster, me, and not actually discuss the issue.

Not sure why anyone bothers to try and have a conversation here.

It's not my bias archer, it's my education in finance and the common sense I learned from my parents. If you are going to compare the gov't spending with the average family's spending, then you can't leave out facts that hurt your argument.

Shall we compare how an individual creates jobs vs how the gov't creates them? I think you find similar differences there too.

archer wrote:
Neither you nor Rick have a clue what I'm saying because you can't see beyond your own bias. Any good financial planner or CPA will explain the two sides of the ledger to you, and how to balance a budget by balancing BOTH sides of the ledger. The family can increase revenue with a 2nd job, our getting the education for a better job, but all you can see are the absurd examples meant to insult and demean a poster, me, and not actually discuss the issue.

Not sure why anyone bothers to try and have a conversation here.

Your analogy with the family has failed. The President and members of congress are not going to go out and work as greeters at Walmart to increase revenue.

They're going to raise taxes which is their single and only possible source of income. An opinion stating that they currently have enough revenue and should cut spending is a perfectly valid opinion, it's just one with you happen to disagree.

I also see a spending problem, there are many government programs that I would like to see eliminated.

Here's the problem....there are a certain percentage of the "rich" who "get it".....the BIG
PLAYERS like Gates etc.....they understand that "when much is given, much is expected in
return".....then you have the TRULY ego-centered GREEDY AND "I GOT MINE" mentally...they
are the problem with their "let them eat cake" archaic mindset.....they even made a movie of
one them...."The Wolf of Wallstreet"...played by DICapario...THAT element is still present, just
not as blatant....JMO....the have and the have nots will CONTINUE to be a problem because
the post DEEP STATE is real and insidious.....the 1 percent will do their upmost to maintain
status quo...JMO

Nobody that matters wrote: there are many government programs that I would like to see eliminated.

Me too... Defense spending by at least 50%; no more million-dollar farm subsidies for members of Congress who happen to own some farmland somewhere and are already millionaires; no more Billions in subsidies for the oil and gas industries ($4Billion/year?...Really?); no more loopholes for corporate jets; no more offshore tax-avoidance schemes and hidden bank accounts; no more "deferred interest" that makes vultures like Mitt-Flop millions; and the list goes on and on...

LadyJazzer wrote:

Nobody that matters wrote: there are many government programs that I would like to see eliminated.

Me too... Defense spending by at least 50%; no more million-dollar farm subsidies for members of Congress who happen to own some farmland somewhere and are already millionaires; no more Billions in subsidies for the oil and gas industries ($4Billion/year?...Really?); no more loopholes for corporate jets; no more offshore tax-avoidance schemes and hidden bank accounts; no more "deferred interest" that makes vultures like Mitt-Flop millions; and the list goes on and on...

So does my list, although it's significantly different than yours.

Regardless of where the cuts take place, it remains a valid point of debate as to whether the government needs to increase revenue or to simply make due with what they already have.

Historically, if the government gets an increase in revenue, it increases spending to match. It grows and grows, and doesn't ever reduce.

I for one would like to see some reductions happening (real reductions, not just decreasing the amount of the increase) prior to any rise in revenues.

archer wrote: Most any family will tell you that when you get too deep in debt the best way to get out of debt is to cut your spending AND increase your income......Republicans want to just cut our way to a balanced budget (preferably on the backs of seniors, the disabled, and the poor) Democrats want to take more money from the wealthier Americans and use it to limit how much we have to cut from services for those the republicans have decided can do without. Put these two sides together rather than making it an either/or, and maybe we can actually balance a budget and bring down our debt. Without setting our country back 50 years in how we treat the poor, the elderly, and the sick/disabled.

True, but most families don't consider a "cut" by just not increasing spending. That is a big problem the govt has. I know a few people who are in charge of govt offices. Every year they get a certain amount of budget funds. It increases by a certain amount every year. If they don't get that increase, it is considered a "cut" in the budget, when really, they just spent the same they did the previous year. If we would just stop the increases. Just fix the spending exactly where it is today, it would eventually allow us to fix the budget. As we quit wasting $$ in govt, we can grow the economy. THAT is where your addl revenue will come in, not by increasing tax rates, but just by tax receipts increasing.

archer wrote: Neither you nor Rick have a clue what I'm saying because you can't see beyond your own bias. Any good financial planner or CPA will explain the two sides of the ledger to you, and how to balance a budget by balancing BOTH sides of the ledger. The family can increase revenue with a 2nd job, our getting the education for a better job, but all you can see are the absurd examples meant to insult and demean a poster, me, and not actually discuss the issue.

Not sure why anyone bothers to try and have a conversation here.

I understand what you are saying, I just have a different comprehension of how economics works. By increasing tax rates, or removing "loopholes" (as you call it, not sure if you mean legitimate deductions or something else...loophole is a vague term), you slow down the economy, which may actually reduce revenue. Govt produces nothing, so every $$ they take from the private sector is one less dollar to be spent on the economy.

RenegadeCJ wrote:

archer wrote: Neither you nor Rick have a clue what I'm saying because you can't see beyond your own bias. Any good financial planner or CPA will explain the two sides of the ledger to you, and how to balance a budget by balancing BOTH sides of the ledger. The family can increase revenue with a 2nd job, our getting the education for a better job, but all you can see are the absurd examples meant to insult and demean a poster, me, and not actually discuss the issue.

Not sure why anyone bothers to try and have a conversation here.

I understand what you are saying, I just have a different comprehension of how economics works. By increasing tax rates, or removing "loopholes" (as you call it, not sure if you mean legitimate deductions or something else...loophole is a vague term), you slow down the economy, which may actually reduce revenue. Govt produces nothing, so every $$ they take from the private sector is one less dollar to be spent on the economy.

I actually didn't mention loopholes. There are many possibilities for bringing in revenue. Yes, one could be the elimination of subsidies or favorable tax breaks to industries. Another could be eliminating, or at least raising the cap on SS taxes, lower limits on mortgage deductions, or eliminating the deductions on mortgage on 2nd homes. I think we have the ability to find ways to increase revenue and to cut spending (yes, I do mean actual spending not just to cut the increases)

There are two benefits I see to this approach, the debt decreases faster than with cuts alone, and there is some philosophy in this that will appeal to liberals and conservatives. Liberals get some revenue and some cleaning up of the tax code, conservatives get some real cuts in spending(though maybe not in the areas they want most) and a bonus, the American people get the impression that their elected representatives are serious about tackling financial issues.