The Conservative Corner

[Viggo]

Ok. It's Monday morning, and I'm trying to go through the weekend postings. Good discussion. I'll try to send everyone who posted this weekend a short PM as soon as I can.

The discussion seems to be steering more into a discussion of taxes, a very specific, tedious topic. So, I'd like to try to link this to a more general question involving taxes, revenue, and the budget. You can be as specific, general, or philosophical as you like with your answers. Just show support. Here we go:


Do you think the U.S. Federal Government should balance it's budget? Why? Why not?

and

If you answered yes, how would you balance the budget? If you answered no to the first question, would you change the way our tax dollars are spent in any way?


As a conservative, yes, I think the Federal Government should balance it's budget, or at least, reduce it significantly.
If something is not done, and our debt continues to balloon, our credit rating will be lowered and it will cost more and more money to pay the interest on our debt. This is wasted money. Also, if China or Japan stop buying our debt, WE ARE SCREWED.

I know I know, "They'll always buy our debt."

Really? Really? Really? If they think we have no chance of paying it back and show no signs of pushing some fiscal austerity, why continue to buy our debt?

To quote Margaret Thatcher, "Sooner or later, you run out of other people's money."

To balance the budget, I would call for a combination of revenue increases (or "enhancements," I love the way words are poll-tested) and significant spending reductions. I support the fair tax. I think the fair tax, coupled with reducing our capital gains tax and corporate tax rates, some of the highest in the world, would generate more revenue than we're currently taking in.
First off, the fair tax would create a more business-friendly envirnoment. Businesses would know how much they have to pay at the end of the year and could do more long-term planning and investing. They wouldn't have to spend money on hiring accountants to figure out the labyrinthine U.S. tax code and look for loopholes to save themselves money. Clearing up the uncertainty by using the Fair Tax would also give banks more confidence when it comes to lending money, and I hope most can agree, giving qualified people access to credit is essential for a growing economy.

Lowering the corporate tax and capital gains tax would encourage more businesses to come to the U.S. and more businesses to stay here. People give corporations a hard time when they move their factories or move a lot of their money to overseas bank accounts so they can avoid paying the high taxes over here. They're just looking out for the best interests of their stockholders, which is what they're supposed to do. If our tax rates weren't so high on big businesses, they would be more encouraged to stay here, and *gasp* even expand.

As for cutting spending. I would reform social security to make it solvent. Raise the retirement age, tweak the benefits, and means-test it so Warren Buffett and Bill Gates aren't getting paid. This can be done fairly easily because people receive a set amount each week for SS payments.

Medicare and Medicaid are much more difficult, because it's difficult to tell how much people's medical payments will be. The best solution I see is to set up a voucher system. Give them a set limit for what they can spend for health care payments per month/year, etc. I realize this will rub a lot of people the wrong way, but we can't be using a band-aid to patch these programs up. We have to make some serious changes.

Defense. Defense is the most primary function of our federal government, but there are ways we can cut defense spending too.
We need to stop nation-building. We were right to go into Iraq and Afghanistan, but our objectives got muddles along the way, and somehow we thought we could bring U.S- style democracy to tribal nations. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
Also, I don't know why we have to have so many troops stationed in first-world countries like Germany and Japan. I say, bring some of these troops home and put them on the southern border.


So, what do you think?

 

[LSN80]

A flat tax rate isn't fair. That's only one portion of the taxes you pay. Plus like in my example, look at disposable income. A progressive tax rate is a balance for the sale tax (which puts more burden on the poor because they have a larger propensity to spend because they need it to survive). Also, a flat tax rate has to be balanced out by an increase in sales tax, which all the proposed flat tax plans want to use. In other words, they are proposing putting more of the tax burden on the poor.

I don't follow this. Unless the rich have recently stopped spending on far more then they need and have simply become philantropists that are giving their money away or have become hoarders with all their money, the rich are always going to spend more. If you had said that; The poor spend a larger % of their money, I could follow your logic, even though it would still be flawed. Federal government, which is whom we're discussing here, doesn't interfere in state tax laws with regards to supposed injustices in state taxing laws. If you have a credible example suggesting otherwise, Id love to see it.

My information comes from a wide variety of professors. I have 3 econ professors, a finance professor, a stats professor, and a business law professor (who has a MBA and JD) who I talk to fairly regularly about this stuff. They can usually see through the media's bias or at least get me to look at things in a different light.

Well, yeah, that's well and good, but if you're using them for the (faulty) information that you provided above, I'd look for new professors. Further, this just reeks of arrogance, and looks awfully similar to something I read in my "More Intelligent Gender" thread.

Women aren't more emotional, they just show it more. Men bottle it up. Don't try to argue with me, I have an aunt with a PhD in psychology, my girlfriend is a psych major, and one of my good friends is working on her PhD in psych. they ALL say that this is a huge misunderstanding.

Don't try to argue with you? I almost feel like you're trying to play Mod here- one of the biggest things I encourage people to do is to challenge each others standpoints, in a respectful way. That's what truly drives discussion, not 15 people who say the same thing. Further, as someone who does have a Doctorate in Psychology, I think I'd be more then qualified to "argue with you" from an "experts" standpoint, wouldn't you?

For example, most rich people went to college, the benefits of college are almost soley on the person graduating. So wouldn't it make sense they get taxed more to pay back some of that benefit they recieved since colleges are made affordable through taxes? stuff like that. Then I do my own research and apply what I've learned. If an article seems too opinionated, or isn't written by someone with a degree, I don't read it. Journalists aren't economists.

No, journalists aren't economists. But here's the thing. However slanted, biased, or otherwise that they may be, they spend more time with the leading experts in the field then you do. They don't just spout off misinformed opinions, they discuss their opinions with leading economists and the like. They'ld be quite foolish to do otherwise, but clearly your extremely opinionated stance is of more value then theirs.

School does cost more, but it's also easier for non-legacy students to go to college. It's not the cost I'm worried about as much as availability. Not only that but it's likely also similar to how MLB player's salaries have increased incredibly fast. It was an untapped money maker that wasn't realized at the time.

I truly don't get the MLB correlary here, or how it applies. But here's the thing: Everyone knows that there are an abundance of schools within the country. But cost is a factor, a much larger one then availability for most.

I know that public schools don't actually cost less. However, my parents combine make less than 40,000, for 3 kids. Growing up, I didn't always have cable. sometimes, I had to shower at grandmas because the water was turned off. I was late for class because the electricity was turned off and my alarm clock was off. Yet I got good grades, I started working summer jobs at 15 and haven't stopped. Now I work 30 hours a week and go to college and get mostly As and Bs. I thank people for paying taxes to give me a chance.

I tend to agree here. Personally, I wouldn't have gotten into my colleges of choice if it weren't for financial aid, I've been thankful for it ever since. But the biggest way for someone to assure that they don't need tax money to get by? Do well from a young age, and get scholarships. It's what I did. Go to a junior college and transfer after a year or two of proving yourself, grades wise. So much of this can be laid at the feet of personal responsibility then it can government.

Without it, there is no way in hell I am in college. Maybe it's a bias perspective, but if taxes are a restriction on success, so is being born less fortunate. The goal of capitalism (the way I see it) is that the best doctors become doctors, the best businessmen become businessmen, etc. That doesn't happen with pure capitalism because some people simple can't afford to go to school.

I'm not sure how the correlation of "the best businessmen become businessmen" applies here. I came from a family just as poor as yours, and I managed to be able to get larger "handouts" because I was both poor and maintained excellent grades.

I'm talking about nepotism like how if there wasn't tax money to afford school, and say I'm working in a factory and I'm smart, my boss isn't going to pay for my school, he's going to pay for his son's/friend's/family friend's school instead to justify promoting him.

If you prove yourself to be the most valuable respected asset to your company, I believe this can overcome nepotism. It's worked for me in the past, so much of this falls under individual responsibility as much as anything. I still don't understand where this sense of entitlement comes in, however, that a family business should pay for a non-family member to go to school.

Yes, it is always how the world has worked. The vast majority of suburban kids I know are getting internships/jobs through their parents and don't work through school. Under pure capitalism, these would be the only kids in college. You'd end up not truly having the best doctors/businessmen, etc.

No, they would be the only ones going to the most prestigous schools, one would suppapose, but even that doesn't hold water. I went to a smaller school to get my bachelor's but because I exceled on campus and academically, I was granted opportunities based upon my accomplishments, and received opportunities at more prestigious schools. Again, people blame one side of the government or the other far too much for their own lack of achievements. If you work hard enough, and you show the ability to succeed through your grades and other involvement, you will.

I don't ask for the government to help me. I don't ask for a handout. I don't think there should be handouts. I consider it "opportunity". Saying "if you get accepted into a college and your parents get less than 30,000 a year and you are in good academic standing, you get 3,000/year in grant money" isn't a handout. That's an opportunity.

Yes, yes it is: You're just assuming that a handout is a bad thing. Just as there are rules on restrictions on people who apply for welfare and collect unemployment. There's always going to be a sense of "it's a handout" when it comes to those things.

In Dallas, business owners are bitchin that people are 'too lazy' to work their minimum wage job they have available. the workers aren't lazy, the owners are greedy. It's basic economics because the price of labor isn't different than the price of anything else. Raise the wage and I guarantee more people work. More and more people are realizing that the fat cats at the top are paid too much and are sick of it.

So uneducated people say in high school or just out of, or who didn't go to college, should receive a large wage from a company? Why? Again, this is the sense of entitlement I was talking about. If you're that desperate for a job, take the minimum wage one, as at least it's something. If not, then you are lazy.

Or you'd have people moving out of one state if the other had better rates. For example, my state, Missouri, is proposing eliminating state income tax and raising sales tax 7%. however, St. Louis and Kansas City, our two biggest cities, are borders of other states that would have lower sales taxes. People would just drive 20 miles and shop in bulk and our tax revenue would go down when we already don't have enough.

Im sorry, the problem here is what? I lived close to Ohio for a long time, as a PA resident. Yet there were outlet stores in Ohio, and you better believe I did my shopping there. I don't know about you, but my allegiance was to my bank account, not to the tax revenue of my state. In truly breaking it down, where would your admittedly poor family's allegiance have been? Saving money, or preserving a tax revenue. You're lying to yourself, and everyone else, if you would answer the latter.

I think our system right now is fine. The tax system is fine.

When our own President comes out on TV and says, "The system isn't fine", I'm much more likely to put stock into his word then I am yours.

 

[Davi323]

Do you think the U.S. Federal Government should balance it's budget? Why? Why not?

Yes, and for the simplest of reasons. if EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN is expected to maintain a balanced budget at home, then so should our Government. Michigan requires a balanced budget, after decades of running up debt. Difficult cuts have had to be made. People bitch, people whine about how unfair it is, and that's fine. But, as a Michigander, I do not need to worry about Michigan becoming another California, so deep in debt it can never recover.

If you answered yes, how would you balance the budget? If you answered no to the first question, would you change the way our tax dollars are spent in any way?

This is a much more complicated question, with a complicated answer. There is no one correct way to balance a budget. Some would propose making an equal percentage cut across all programs, others might only cut key programs and leave others alone. I tend to favor making key cuts in specific departments to reduce costs. Even as a conservative, I think we could make significant cuts to the military without losing any effectiveness. I don't want to gut the military by any means, what I am talking about is a systematic audit of where the money goes, what works and what doesn't, where overspending is occurring, etc. Cut the dead branches, not cut the tree down. The United States of America has the best trained, best equipped armed forces on the planet, but is also famous for paying 600 bucks for a hammer, 800 bucks for a toilet seat, etc. There has to be a way we can trim the fat, and keep a lean, mean, fighting machine available. Right now, it's bloated.

There are plenty of other Government departments that can be trimmed down to useful levels, get rid of the pork spending that costs taxpayers billions of dollars each year to pay for something that really should be paid for at the state or local level. It is not the responsibility of taxpayers in Virginia to pay for a covered bridge in Missouri.

We can reduce our spending that way. Now comes the real problem. Once you make the cuts to the budget, you still have this 14+ trillion dollar debt that needs to be paid off. That isn't going to be immediate. Something like that is going to take years. Even if you were able to pay off one trillion dollars a year without adding to the debt at all, it would still take us until 2026 to pay off. This is going to take ironclad spending limits that MUST be enforced. In order to pay off the debt, you need to actually not balance the budget. You will need decades of spending LESS than you are bringing in, essentially surpluses, just to reduce it. But, the end result will be well worth the sacrifices. We need help though. The biggest thing we can do to help is to create a business friendly environment, so that each state can get all of those unemployed people draining their coffers employed and thus, a taxable citizen. We need more people contributing to state and federal budgets, and less people draining them. Stop demonizing businesses that generate jobs. Stop taxing them to the point where they can't hire anyone. The biggest source of income for the United States ought to be it's own taxpayers, so do what you can to increase their numbers.

 

[SalvIsWin]

A rate where everyone pays the same rate is garbage? To me, that sounds fair. In fact, that's the definition of fair. (Though not to be confused with the "fair tax").

Fair in what way? What if every American paid $5,000 in taxes? Would that be fair? There's no discrimination or bias, we all the pay the same - but most people would think that's bullshit because there's an injustice about it, and there's still a gross injustice about introducing a flat tax. For some people in America, you'll pay your flat tax and have just enough money to keep yourself and your family alive. For other families, you'll pay your flat taxes and enough money to pay a minimum standard of living one thousand times over. 'That's not my fault, I worked hard and I should be doing better than most everyone else.' This is the ridiculous attitude that I hate.

After a certain amount of income any additional income you make will be luxury cash. It will be money that ensures you don't drive a $10,000 car, you drive a $100,000 car, it's money that ensures that you don't eat ten dollar meals, you eat one-hundred dollar meals - this is called greed. You don't have to take or desire money illegally or illegitimately for it to be greedy. People want more, and more, and more because they are greedy fucks and they don't care if their greed comes at the cost of other people having miserable existences. It's not a matter of it being legitimate, legal, or fairly acquired wealth, it's greed nonetheless. If people just just be content with having a good life by reasonable standards there wouldn't be all these fucking problems.

And I say, so what? Who cares how much someone else makes. As long as those are not ill-gotten gains, why does it matter? The economy is not a zero sum game, if that were the case then it would be impossible for it to ever grow. If one person makes more, it doesn't mean someone else made less. Income inequality is one of the most overrated numbers people cite because it assumes that income equality is a goal. It's not. I worked harder than 90% of my peers in high school and college, why should I feel guilty for making much more then them?

Yeah, who gives a shit. This is the same sort of attitude that had people cheering at Ron Paul when he was forced to admit that we should just let someone die. God fucking forbid we all took a cut so that someone doesn't die. People value their their own material bullshit over peoples lives, that's the moral dilemma. Holy shit, I might not be able to drive a fifty thousand dollar BMW to work instead of a fifteen thousand dollar Toyota? People should just admit that they don't care about other people enough to give up anything of their own because they're greedy as hell; at least that way they'd save time from arguing about things they pretend to care about.

Here's an actual idea: have a version of the current system in which a persons greedy desires are satiated, but dial it back. I don't know what a good number would be, but for easy numbers let's say for easy numbers that there is a 10% deduction in income for everyone, and that income is distributed among everyone equally. The very, very rich would lose a lot of money, but at the end they're still considerably wealthier than every other person in the country. The very, very poor would be able to live modestly with no luxuries, but there wouldn't be people in poverty.

 

[RockFan89]

Fair in what way? What if every American paid $5,000 in taxes? Would that be fair? There's no discrimination or bias, we all the pay the same - but most people would think that's bullshit because there's an injustice about it, and there's still a gross injustice about introducing a flat tax. For some people in America, you'll pay your flat tax and have just enough money to keep yourself and your family alive. For other families, you'll pay your flat taxes and enough money to pay a minimum standard of living one thousand times over. 'That's not my fault, I worked hard and I should be doing better than most everyone else.' This is the ridiculous attitude that I hate.

First off, no one is suggesting everyone pay the same dollar amount. Secondly, I already proposed a compromise that would make you happy, make the first $XX,XXX of income tax free. Thirdly, explain why the idea that people who worked hard shouldn't be doing better than those who didn't. Why should people like me, who worked hard in school, got good grades, etc. have to support those who did the bare minimum, or those who didn't even do that.

It's not a matter of it being legitimate, legal, or fairly acquired wealth, it's greed nonetheless.

Greed is immoral, but you no what else is? Adultery, neglecting your family, disrespecting people, etc. but are any of those illegal? No. Why are you forcing your morals on everyone else?

If people just just be content with having a good life by reasonable standards there wouldn't be all these fucking problems.

What are you talking about? What problems are being caused by people wanting more?

God fucking forbid we all took a cut so that someone doesn't die.

Why do liberals like you act like no one pays taxes? Everyone already takes a cut!

People should just admit that they don't care about other people enough to give up anything of their own because they're greedy as hell; at least that way they'd save time from arguing about things they pretend to care about.

I've already shown in this thread that conservatives, the ones calling for more cuts, are the one giving more away to help others.

Here's an actual idea: have a version of the current system in which a persons greedy desires are satiated, but dial it back. I don't know what a good number would be, but for easy numbers let's say for easy numbers that there is a 10% deduction in income for everyone, and that income is distributed among everyone equally. The very, very rich would lose a lot of money, but at the end they're still considerably wealthier than every other person in the country. The very, very poor would be able to live modestly with no luxuries, but there wouldn't be people in poverty.

And you wonder why people keep calling liberals socialists.

Why is it that the liberals on this thread can only resort to name calling? There's no substance in their posts. They have some fantasy of how the world would work if we just forcibly took from the wealthy and just handed it to the poor. Such policy has never worked. And the principles of low taxes and limited government have made our country so successful. The U.S was established in 1776, just 150 years later we had the largest economy in the world and the most powerful military in history. It's because of those ideals that remained at the heart of our country. Even to this day, immigrants flock to come to our shores. They would rather live in poverty in the U.S. than be middle to upper class back home.

Now, out of respect to the OP, I'll stop responding to these red herrings and straw-men and get to his questions.

Do you think the U.S. Federal Government should balance it's budget? Why? Why not?

Of course it should have a balanced budget. We have a massive debt and we must begin paying it down. The troubles in Europe should be a clear sign to us of what can happen when we don't pay down our debts. And even though the impact of a deficit may not be felt by us, it will be felt by our children or grandchildren. It is immoral to make them pay for our overspending.

If you answered yes, how would you balance the budget?

Cut defense. We don't need so many weapons on hand. With regards to troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya, keep them as long as need be. For our troops stationed in peaceful countries, either bring them home or make the host countries pay for them.

Reform social security and medicare. I completely agree with Jabroney730 on this, but few people outside of Paul Ryan have the courage to do so.

Honestly, those three things (along with interest on the debt) are our biggest expenditures, and reforming those will go a long way in solving our problems.

Finally, as was already pointed out, we need more business friendly policies. The reason many businesses are moving out of this country is because they can't be competitive if they stay here. Labor costs, regulations costs, taxes, etc. are unnecessarily burdening them. The best way to raise revenue is not by increasing taxes but by improving the economy, and real, sustainable growth can only come from the private sector.

 

[Viggo]

The United States of America has the best trained, best equipped armed forces on the planet, but is also famous for paying 600 bucks for a hammer, 800 bucks for a toilet seat, etc. There has to be a way we can trim the fat, and keep a lean, mean, fighting machine available. Right now, it's bloated.

You're right on here, Davi. The military does do a lot of wasteful spending. It's just as bad as the $20 Department of Justice muffins! lol. I'll try to look up some info. on wasteful miliary spending and post it in here soon, and I enourage other posters to look up examples of wasteful government spending as well and post links here too.

The best way to raise revenue is not by increasing taxes but by improving the economy, and real, sustainable growth can only come from the private sector.

Amen! The public sector does not create wealth. It consumes wealth and redistributes it. Wealth starts in the private sector, which is why the private sector is the engine that drives the economy. The fact that we use the word "private sector" is already an indication that the public sector has gotten too large.

The solution to our debt problem and balancing our budget is not raising taxes, it is increasing revenue. You get increased revenue from a growing economy. You get a growing economy by letting businesses of all size do what they do best: attending to their business. When the government constantly gets in the way with regulation after regulation, businesses can't grow or create wealth.

 

[Larry]

The solution to our debt problem and balancing our budget is not raising taxes, it is increasing revenue. You get increased revenue from a growing economy. You get a growing economy by letting businesses of all size do what they do best: attending to their business. When the government constantly gets in the way with regulation after regulation, businesses can't grow or create wealth.

I agree with this, but I think it also prompts us to look at something else that's been widely discussed in this thread and that's taxes and tax reform. I've always said and did so earlier, that you don't need more regulation, or particularly less of it, you need the RIGHT regulation to stammer corporate corruption at the top, and ease the ability of businesses to conduct business, develop and produce products, and employ as many people as possible. This all leads to taxes though. Is it right that a company like GE pays no taxes whatsoever in this damaged economy? Or that many companies find loophole after loophole to evade paying loads of taxes? Or that there are millions of citizens both legal and illegal who aren't paying into the tax pool? I think not. So that brings us to Tax Reform.

I personally think that the Fair Tax would be the way to go and would generate more revenue since EVERYONE would be paying taxes through everything they consume. That means illegals, legals, current tax evaders, and anyone else would be paying their taxes just buying things, and people would have more of their own money to spend. Some folks would even get a probate check every month putting MORE money in the pockets of consumers, and never again would taxes be taken out of your payroll checks.

 

[SalvIsWin]

First off, no one is suggesting everyone pay the same dollar amount. Secondly, I already proposed a compromise that would make you happy, make the first $XX,XXX of income tax free. Thirdly, explain why the idea that people who worked hard shouldn't be doing better than those who didn't. Why should people like me, who worked hard in school, got good grades, etc. have to support those who did the bare minimum, or those who didn't even do that.

I'm not suggesting that hard work and effort should account for nothing, but the system in place now creates a wild variation between the wealthy and the poor. You should get ahead for working harder to a degree. No one should be making millions and millions of dollars a year when there are people who are barely surviving, I don't find that moral or ethical.

Greed is immoral, but you no what else is? Adultery, neglecting your family, disrespecting people, etc. but are any of those illegal? No. Why are you forcing your morals on everyone else?

Plenty of morals have been forced on people for the good of collective society. In my opinion, the greed of capitalist societies is rampant and destructive.

What are you talking about? What problems are being caused by people wanting more?

Poverty and homelessness for starters.

Why do liberals like you act like no one pays taxes? Everyone already takes a cut!

The United States taxes people more depending on how much they make, it's not a flat tax system, why is that? No one needs that much money, it's unethical to have people making ridiculous sums of money that improve the quality of that persons life very, very little when that same sum of money could drastically improve the quality of life for tens, hundreds, or thousands of people.

I've already shown in this thread that conservatives, the ones calling for more cuts, are the one giving more away to help others.

I'm not arguing from a Liberal or Conservative perspective, so your point isn't valid - I'm arguing from a humane perspective versus a greedy perspective.

And you wonder why people keep calling liberals socialists.

No I don't wonder. You say this as if your quote proves anything or furthers your argument at all. OK, being less greedy and improving American's collective quality of life greatly at very little expense is socialist - you got me. Your point?

Why is it that the liberals on this thread can only resort to name calling? There's no substance in their posts. They have some fantasy of how the world would work if we just forcibly took from the wealthy and just handed it to the poor. Such policy has never worked. And the principles of low taxes and limited government have made our country so successful. The U.S was established in 1776, just 150 years later we had the largest economy in the world and the most powerful military in history. It's because of those ideals that remained at the heart of our country. Even to this day, immigrants flock to come to our shores. They would rather live in poverty in the U.S. than be middle to upper class back home.

Explain why it wouldn't work instead of just saying, 'It wouldn't work - well that's the end of that!' Your point is a non-sequitur - 'The United States is doing well, therefore any idea that would change anything would not work.' That's not how that works. The United States was doing well when slavery, racism, and no voting rights for women were commonplace, I guess that shouldn't have been done away with because that was part of the policy under which America was growing quite well. You can't just say 'America has done well because of this' with no elaboration and expect that to be an effective argument.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

A Sales tax is a state tax, not a federal tax. The Federal government does not issue tax policy in an attempt to address, what you perceive as, an injustice in state tax policy.

And what do you mean the poor have a larger propensity to spend? Wealthy people buy more things then poor people, thus they pay more in sales tax. Sure, if a poor person and rich person buy the exact same things, both would pay the same sales tax, but that's irrelevant because that's not what happens. And here's another remedy you should like, eliminate the sales tax on necessities or issue a tax credit equivalent to the sales tax paid for the poor (which many states already do).



See, you missed my point from the last post. Colleges are not affordable because of government policy. You're not looking deeper at the implications of the conservative policies. Yes you will get less government aid, but you will have more money because you pay less in taxes, make more money because your employer would pay less taxes, and have less expenses because the cost of everything you buy goes down since you sellers pay less taxes. A tax impacts more than just the person directly paying it. Plus, colleges will be forced to reduce costs instead of just counting on the government to increase aid. And for the few who still can't afford, there are literally thousands of scholarships established by private individuals and companies out there for students and universities would have to offer scholarships to the best and brightest students in order to compete academically.

Also, stop acting as if you're the only informed one here. I've already stated that I'm attending a university as well, all of my professors have PhD's AND real world experience.

Besides, I'm the only one here actually citing sources. You've yet to do that. (Even in the recent thread on gun control, you just threw out a bogus claim went nothing to substantiate it while Davi323 gave you a source that completely contradicted you: http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=196122)



You're not worried about cost but about availability? What are you talking about? There are plenty of institutions of higher education in this country. From Ivy League schools, to average state universities, to community colleges, to trade schools. We have an abundance of schools, the issue for most people is cost, which I've already stated is driven by government policy.

And your MLB analogy makes no sense.



I don't know your parents' circumstances, so I may be missing a key fact. But if they combined to make less than $40,000 a year, why did they have 3 kids? That's not capitalism's fault that 5 people had to live on so little. Individuals need to take responsibility for their own actions, and that includes the number of children they have.



Yes, the big and prestigious universities will be too expensive for many people (without scholarships). But you don't have to go to those schools to become successful. If you work hard in school, get active on campus, get good grades, you can succeed. Look at the Asian community in this country. They go to the same schools as everyone else, but somehow they continue to succeed. It's because of a drive and work ethic unparallelled to any other group of people.



My parents immigrated to this country 2 years before I was born with nothing. One's an airplane mechanic and the other works at the post office. They didn't have any connections to get me an internship. I still was able to line up a good job after graduation. Your assertion that the poor would not have any opportunities is based not on reality but on your own opinion of how the economics of education work.



People from households making that little have plenty of opportunity for aid. I couldn't apply for 70% of the scholarships I saw just because my parents made too much money. On the other hand, I've seen plenty of kids getting aid who have no business being in college. They just come to party, have no work ethic, and drop out before sophomore year.



Again, why do you care about how much other people make? People get paid based on what someone is willing to pay you. If you have low or no skills, don't expect to be paid well. Why should employers have to over pay for labor?



Okay, so what's your point? People should then move to where the cost of living is lower. Simple solution that people practice all time.



1) If we're talking about Federal taxes, it doesn't matter where you live.
2) Do you not realize people already factor in taxes when they make decisions on where they live? I can't believe you think this is something that isn't already and has always happened.



No. That's nothing more than leftist propaganda intended to incite people to think that everything is stacked against them. That the reason they fail is not something in themselves but is society's fault.



Well, you're the only one who thinks that.



but then you say



Alexander Hamilton, Ronald Reagan, even Bill Clinton implemented trickle down economics to some extent. Where in the world has taking money from the rich and spreading it equally out to everyone else ever worked? Plus, that second scenario is flat out immoral. The idea that everyone is entitled to the same amount of money is wrong. Some people work harder then others and should be rewarded as such.



Ok, I don't know why you think otherwise, but saving and investing are both good things. I'm really questioning how good your economics professors are if they are saying otherwise. Over consumption has been a problem in America.



Again, you're the only one.



Really? All those CEOs, all those lawyers, accountants, doctors, etc. were some rich persons kid? If you want to believe that, fine. But that's not reality.



Ideally, the government would have no say in marriage. If it's going to, then let every state decide what relationships it gives special privileges to.



For it, getting high is not a reason to put someone in jail. (Though I shouldn't be forced to pay for that persons medical bills after he/she destroys their body)



Unless you have an argument for why an unborn child is not entitled to the basic right to live, then I'm going to remain pro life.



Well, I'm glad the sanctity of marriage and the right to life are not moral issues for you.



Don't even know what that means. If abortion is murder, I don't care about the economics, it's wrong.

Everyone's proposed flat tax would require a sales tax increase. They all talk about it.

You don't get it. It doesn't matter if I could safe more with tax cuts. It STILL wouldn't be able to afford it. Not only that, but if you cut too many taxes, you also hinder public schools. So now, not only can the less fortunate not really afford college, but their public k-12 schools aren't teaching them well enough.

Yea, lots of scholarships. however, when the inner city school has a shit math teacher and you get a 12 on the ACT math section, it doesn't matter. It took the government forcing race-driven programs for that to even happen (which supports my hatred of nepotism, if you aren't the group that's not in power, that being WASPs, it's even harder because of inherant favoritism).

Taxation isn't always a hinderance. If I spend 1,000 in taxes or whatever, but I gain 4,000 in benefit, it works. If society as a whole suffers a 12M dollar deadweight loss on the tax, but it increases the benefits to society as a whole by 20M, you should do it. Why dont' you see that taxation, when managed properly, CAN help. Like the other guy in this thread said. It's not "less vs more" regulation, it's the RIGHT KIND of regulation and taxation.


You don't understand propensity to save. You really don't. If I make 100,000 dollars, and I spend 20,000 on living expenses, and 30,000 on recreational expenses, and save 50,000, I'm saving 50%. If I make 20,000 a year, I spend 20,000 on living expenses, that's 0% saving. I spend more at 20,000.

Think of it like this. 7% sales tax (which is what it is in missouri, well, 7.5). I need a good matress, it's a living expense. I don't know how much matresses cost, but let's just say 100 dollars. So, 7 dollars in tax. If I only make 600 a month (which is about right for me atm), that's 1.17% of my monthly income. Someone else makes 5,000 a month, buys the same matress, the tax is just 0.14% of their monthly income. That's why a flat tax rate is bad. You need to factor in disposable vs necessary income and also the affect of the sales tax.

The ONLY way I would support a flat tax rate is if the sales tax on every item is scaled to a dollar amount relative to what the average person makes. So if the average person makes 30,000. a gallon of milk that costs 3 dollars at 7% would be 21 cents. 21 cents of 30,000 is 0.0007% of their income. So it would be 0.0007% of everyone's income. So if you make 30M/year, you pay 210 dollars in taxes on that gallon of milk, because that's the equivalent amount. Also, on income tax, you're only taxed on everything over the cost of living. Like I said though, all of these would be incredibly difficult to enforce and make happen.

My dad works construction (the housing market in missouri is pretty shit and even worse since the collapse), my mom was preggo with me when she was 19 and dropped out of college to take care of me. Has since went on to become a certified tech. all of that, however, isn't an issue. None of that matters because the issue is ME. I'm smart, it's not my fault my parents may have made bad choices and had too many kids. However, under pure capitalism, I'd be punished.

I should have given you a background on MLB salaries. The players didn't know they could get paid more. With free agency, they started getting paid more and more. Just like universities. They know they can charge people a lot, so they do.

Yes look at the Asian community. They die younger and have a lower quality of life psychologically because they're constantly stressed. That's what I want to do. Make more money but not enjoy life because I'm so focused on working for 4 dollars/hour for my parents at their low cost restaurant so i can work 60 hours/week and maybe get a good job out of college. Then I die at 55 of a heart attack. My girlfriend will have a gerentology/psychology double major after next semester, she's my source.

I'm glad things worked out for you. I don't think you realize how much harder life would be without taxes helping people out. People are naturally greedy, selfish, and bias. Minorities would have it harder and so would poor people. The gap between the rich and poor would increase because it's so easy to succeed when you're born with a silver spoon. Parents pay for all costs and also get you a job. You're set for life.

I'm concerned with how much people get paid because most people don't get paid their marginal revenue product. Why is it that a CEO gets paid millions and the factory workers get paid 1% of his wage? Without the factory workers, the CEO is worthless and vice versa. It should be a lot more equal than it is. Employers aren't over paying for labor, they're under paying because they have leverage. However, as I stated in my Dallas example, people are starting to get sick of it.

I'm not saying people don't factor in taxes, I'm just suggesting you look at all the possible consequences of decisions.

It's not society's fault. A lot of students and people fail themselves. however, if you went to a public school and a public university, it wasn't just you that worked hard for you to be where you are.

trickle down economics is a theory. However, the money rarely "trickles" because it gets eroded and the multiplier is lower. I wasn't saying literally give everyone the same amount, just saying that the idea of giving the rich tax breaks and the excess will "trickle down" to the poor is inefficient because the rich save a larger portion of their money.

Saving and investing are good things to an extent. However, banks are saving 10x the capital as before and companies are saving twice the capital as before. No spending means no growth.

I don't believe all wealthy people were rich kids. I'm saying that unless you're given opportunity (tax subsidies or being born rich) it's very hard to reach that success. Also, ever stop to think that it was probably your non-financial upbringing that also helped you? Some kids don't have good parents like I did. My parents made sure i was smart and driven. Some kids don't know who their dad is, their mom is a crack****e, and their role models are drug dealers 4 years older than them. That's a disadvantage they didn't choose. Unless you just expect them to know about FAFSA and think inner city schools are any good.

you realize that smokers as a whole cost society very little. I don't have the study, it was in my macroeconomic class. When you factor in the fact that smokers (talking about cigs, not pot here) die younger, and typically before retirement, they pay more into the system than they take out. So you really aren't paying for that much for them. Pot would likely be similar. Plus if you had a high tax on it, it would probably pay for itself. to me, singling out one side of things is what too many people do. You can't just say "flat income tax is fair because everyone then pays the same" because of all the reasons I said above. You can't say "I don't want to pay a smoker's medical bill" because they dont' get any retirement benefits and pretty much live their productive life, pay in a bunch, get sick at retirement age, and die. So, when you look at everything, they don't cost society that much.

Abortion is or isn't murder depending on who you talk to. The way I see it, I'd rather have a 16 year old in high school than dropping out of high school paying for their kid. Then again, maybe if we had better sex ed (require more tax money to do so and support from right wing nuts who think that if you just tell kids that sex is bad they won't do it, yes it's those people) then they wouldn't get preggo. I don't care if it's their own fault they got preggo. I'd rather not have to pay for their kid through welfare and I'd rather they be more productive members of society. It's an economic gain. I try not to argue morals.




When I say the tax system is fine. I simply mean that it doesn't need a big overhaul. Tweaks, yes, but not a big overhaul like a lot of people are suggesting.



I agree with Rockfan on cutting our defense. It's fucking ridiculous how much we spend on our military that's already the best. I think I read somewhere that it costs like 20M a day per base to keep troops air condidtioned in Iraq. That's an insane amount of money.




At the end of the day, taxes can create revenue. If they're regulated correctly. I feel like education, safety, health, and transportation should be covered. Everything else you're on your own for. If you are healthy and save and can easily travel to your place of education, there is no reason you can't succeed.


On a side now, you were arguing that the high and inflating cost of education is because of the government. What about the cost of health care. More importantly, the cost of pharmaceuticals? Why are they so expensive here? Is it because they can price gouge because people know they'll chose their health over their finances usually? if so, isn't that a result of capitalism (extremely inelastic demand driving the price up)?

 

[Viggo]

Ok, just gonna respond to a few posts. Thank you for sharing your opinions.

Is it right that a company like GE pays no taxes whatsoever in this damaged economy? Or that many companies find loophole after loophole to evade paying loads of taxes? Or that there are millions of citizens both legal and illegal who aren't paying into the tax pool? I think not. So that brings us to Tax Reform.

Is it right for corporations to do these things? Well, from a legal perspective, yes. When GE moved its money overseas to avoid paying taxes, that's not illegal. When companies find loopholes in the tax code to save money, that's not illegal. You can't blame them for taking advantage of a rigged game. So, that's why I say simplify the tax code with a flat or fair tax, and eliminate all of the loopholes and deductions that companies and individuals can take.

And thank you for bringing this up Ba-Bomb. People talk about "being fair" all the time. Well, is it fair that over 40 percent of all Americans don't pay any federal income tax? The top 10 percent of income earners are responsible for paying over 75 percent of federal revenue, and yet, we always hear about those evil, greedy, millionaires and billionaires don't pay their fair share. Give me a break.

I personally think that the Fair Tax would be the way to go and would generate more revenue since EVERYONE would be paying taxes through everything they consume. That means illegals, legals, current tax evaders, and anyone else would be paying their taxes just buying things, and people would have more of their own money to spend. Some folks would even get a probate check every month putting MORE money in the pockets of consumers, and never again would taxes be taken out of your payroll checks.

I agree completely.

 

[Viggo]

Here's a link I found with some examples of some wasteful government spending:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/10/50-examples-of-government-waste

You'll laugh a few times, trust me. This is serious stuff though.


Okay, that being said. On to a new question. I'm going to keep the questions focused on conservatism, Repbulican party, and the 2012 election in general. Recently, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul have shot up in the polls, with Paul and Gingrich beating Romney in many of them. Ron Paul has stated that he hasn't ruled out the possibility of running as an Independent, and Trump is once again flirting with running, so:

Would you vote for Ron Paul or Donald Trump if they ran as an Independent?


For myself, hell no. I wouldn't vote for either of them. If either ran as an independent, it would all but ensure that Obama is re-elected. I don't believe Trump for a second. I think he's just doing it to get more publicity. Also, he flirts with the idea of running almosty every time a presidential election comes around. I think it's just grandstanding.
I have to give more creedence to Paul though. He could run as an Independent and it would wipe out all hope of defeating Obama. Yes, he would draw some of the Obama vote, but he would draw more away from the GOP. In other words, he would be Ross Perot 2.0. I really hope Ron Paul lets the Republican primary play out and then supports whomever wins the nomination. We'll talk more about Ron Paul next week though.

So there we go, your thoughts?

 

[Davi323]

Would you vote for Ron Paul or Donald Trump if they ran as an Independent?

Like you, my answer would be HELL NO. I wouldn't vote for either if they were the GOP nominee either though.

I get why Ron Paul appeals to some conservatives, but frankly, for every good idea he has, he has an equally batshit crazy idea to match it.

I appreciate Donald Trump's interest in Conservativism...but he is not really a politician, he is just a celebrity. I would question his motives for even running. Is he really running because he genuinely wants to be President, or is he just in it for the photo ops, to get his name in the papers everywhere? I could never fully trust his motives.

Plus, there is the obvious. Neither one stands a snowballs chance in hell at winning, so all they would do is divide the Republican party the same way Ross Perot did in 1992, and hand the election to Obama.

 

[Viggo]

I get why Ron Paul appeals to some conservatives, but frankly, for every good idea he has, he has an equally batshit crazy idea to match it.

I agree. I like some of his fiscal policies and his desire to do away with several government agencies, but his isolationist foreign policy is nuts. I'm baffled by left-leaning people who say they would vote for Ron Paul instead of Obama. They're almost polar opposites! I really don't think they've taken a good, hard look at him.

I appreciate Donald Trump's interest in Conservativism...but he is not really a politician, he is just a celebrity. I would question his motives for even running. Is he really running because he genuinely wants to be President, or is he just in it for the photo ops, to get his name in the papers everywhere? I could never fully trust his motives.

Trump cracks me up, but yeah, he doesn't stand a chance. I think he supports whichever party that is more financially expedient to him at the time. He's donated to a lot of Democratic candidates in the past. It's a publicity stunt.

 

[SalvIsWin]

Like you, my answer would be HELL NO. I wouldn't vote for either if they were the GOP nominee either though.

I get why Ron Paul appeals to some conservatives, but frankly, for every good idea he has, he has an equally batshit crazy idea to match it.

I appreciate Donald Trump's interest in Conservativism...but he is not really a politician, he is just a celebrity. I would question his motives for even running. Is he really running because he genuinely wants to be President, or is he just in it for the photo ops, to get his name in the papers everywhere? I could never fully trust his motives.

Plus, there is the obvious. Neither one stands a snowballs chance in hell at winning, so all they would do is divide the Republican party the same way Ross Perot did in 1992, and hand the election to Obama.

I'm a liberal, and there are some reasons why I like Ron Paul, like his apparent willingness to fight for civil liberties (although I don't like how he is quasi-against gay-marriage) but then his crazy ideas can be scary.

However, lately I've been down on Obama for being weak on the issues that I think matter, and sometimes Obama comes across as more of a conservative than the staunchest of conservatives, and even though I am Canadian and obviously don't vote, if I could vote between Ron Paul and Obama, I'd vote Ron Paul.

Think about it, Ron Paul wants to get rid of all these government departments, get rid of all kinds of taxes, shrink government, etc - but none of that would happen, there's no way congress or the senate would agree with any of these plans, so all of Ron Paul's good ideas could be implemented and supported, and all of his fucking crazy ones could be voted down.

Really, I think you underestimate the appeal of Ron Paul to liberals, he's probably the only candidate a moderate-liberal would vote for in an election - Romney and especially Gingrich are in no position to even make a case for any liberal leaning voter, whereas a lot of liberals are fans of Ron Paul, especially when he can keep his crazy ideas to himself. I really think the best chance for a Republican President is with Ron Paul - I thought Gingrich was the best chance they had a while ago, and before that I thought Romney, but after seeing what's come out the past couple weeks, they're way too weak of candidates to beat Obama or appeal to moderates.

As for Trump, he's an idiot. The man is an egomaniac, it's all about his stupid show, and he doesn't really know anything of substance. Trump knows how to spew rhetoric on oil prices and China, saying he'd be tough without really elaborating on what the fuck he's talking about. Besides that, Trump isn't half as successful as he leads people to believe. His companies frequently go out of business, and they've been bankrupt several times - he's not a business genius, he's not a political genius, he's a mouthpiece.

 

[RockFan89]

Would you vote for Ron Paul or Donald Trump if they ran as an Independent?

For Donald Trump? No way. That guy would make the U.S. a laughing stock. Putting a celebrity in charge of the largest economy and most powerful army in the history of the world is just flat out stupid.

Seriously, this is his plan to deal with high oil prices:

[YOUTUBE]dCg4OLVVqmQ[/YOUTUBE]

His plan is to tell countries that raise prices:

"You're Not Gonna Raise That FUCKIN' Price! "

I'd rather have Obama then him.

With regards to Paul, I would seriously consider voting for him. Now I do agree that his foreign policy is extreme and not appropriate for this day and age. But I live in Illinois, it doesn't matter who I vote for, Illinois is voting for Obama. So maybe if Paul does get a large percent of the vote, some of his other policies will start getting more and more respect.

 

[Larry]

[YOUTUBE]dCg4OLVVqmQ[/YOUTUBE]

Guys, don't take this too seriously, but I maybe, just might, just the littlest bit might vote for Donald Trump, just because of stuff like this. I would ROFLMFAO listening to his presidential address to Saudi Arabia where he says point blank like a true New York-take no bullshit-badass "You're not going to raise that fuckin' price !" Can you imagine Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz when Trump said that shit?! The look on his face would be priceless. I just like the fact that Trump has balls, the position he is in allows it because he is simply a business man and not a President, but if he were President I don't foresee that changing. He is right that some of the stuff these foreign countries get away with as it pertains to us is because there is no one with the balls to simply tell them "You're not going to fuckin' do that!" and while that might not be the most ethical approach, it sure is fun to think about, and funny at the least.

One thing you can say for Trump is that he does know how business works, he knows how to make business successful, and in our modern day economy that functions as one global business, his knowledge in that field would help. You can talk about how many times his businesses have failed for one reason or another, but Trump has always found ways to bounce back. One of the most prominent ways being that he went to lenders he was already in great debt to and convinced them to lend him more money. Why? Because of one principle that he understood: If you owe your bank $1000 dollars you are at their mercy, if you owe your bank $1,000,000 dollars, they are at your mercy". That's a situation we could apply to saaaaay.....China. Say what you will but the guy has got it on the money about China, we can't let them dick us around and cheat in the world economy, we've got to hold them accountable, and if they want to push the issue, they need us far more than we need them. We can get cheap shit from elsewhere or start making it here, they aren't going to find another consumer like the U.S. and we can simply refuse to pay them anything back if they don't want to play ball. While I wouldn't seriously consider voting for Donald Trump, you have to admit that he does have some shit right, he would be entertaining at the least, and it's at least fun to entertain the idea of a President Trump for all he lunacy and outrageous stuff that would come about as a result.

 

[SalvIsWin]

Excellent policies.

For oil, he'll just say, "You're not going to raise that fucking price!"
For the economy he can tell it, "You're not going to fucking double dip!"
Hell, he can even tell the ozone layer, "You're not going to fucking crumble to global warming!"

Genius!

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Do you think the U.S. Federal Government should balance it's budget? Why? Why not?

It would be nice if it were that simple. Personally, I own my car and pay my credit card off monthly but if I expect the Federal Gov't to work within a set amount of money, I better sell my house because there is no way I can pay off my mortgage any time soon. 49 of 50 US states have some sort of balance budget amendment but it doesn't exactly mean you are going to actually get what you think a "balanced budget" actually means.

A balanced budget amendment may get passed some day, but I think most conservatives have no clue how to realistically balance the budget right now without destroying the economy and/or ruining many Americans standard of living. Plus, right now we have debt to pay, I would like to see the Fed Gov't bring in so much money to significantly pay that down.

If you answered yes, how would you balance the budget? If you answered no to the first question, would you change the way our tax dollars are spent in any way?

Of course I would change the way our money is spent. I am on board with conservatives who say they wish we didn't give as much foreign aid. It is unfortunate for those countries but if we are going to pull back our spending it seems a good place to start. Unfortunately, if I had the power to change the way the US spent it's money some lobbyist lovin' representative would find a loophole to change everything again.

To balance the budget, I would call for a combination of revenue increases (or "enhancements," I love the way words are poll-tested) and significant spending reductions.

You are going to lose your conservative card by calling for "revenue increases"

I support the fair tax. I think the fair tax, coupled with reducing our capital gains tax and corporate tax rates, some of the highest in the world, would generate more revenue than we're currently taking in.
First off, the fair tax would create a more business-friendly envirnoment. Businesses would know how much they have to pay at the end of the year and could do more long-term planning and investing. They wouldn't have to spend money on hiring accountants to figure out the labyrinthine U.S. tax code and look for loopholes to save themselves money. Clearing up the uncertainty by using the Fair Tax would also give banks more confidence when it comes to lending money, and I hope most can agree, giving qualified people access to credit is essential for a growing economy.

Lowering the corporate tax and capital gains tax would encourage more businesses to come to the U.S. and more businesses to stay here. People give corporations a hard time when they move their factories or move a lot of their money to overseas bank accounts so they can avoid paying the high taxes over here. They're just looking out for the best interests of their stockholders, which is what they're supposed to do. If our tax rates weren't so high on big businesses, they would be more encouraged to stay here, and *gasp* even expand.

This is all theoretically fantastic but you are talking about doing things that would destroy your balanced budget. Where is the money going to come from if you are going to reduce taxes this way? What proof is there that any of this would work? Even if it did work in the long run, we would have to borrow so much money in the meantime, our debt would explode even more than it already has. I apologize because I don't have another solution other than get to a place that you described "progressively". The only thing your methods guarantee is that a lot of rich people are going to get richer.

Plus letting companies keep more money doesn't create long-term employment, demand creates long-term employment. Most demand for regular goods comes from the middle class. If the middle class does not have disposable income they are willing to spend, no company is going to throw away money expanding. If they do expand and fail they are just creating temporary jobs. Plus what is RockFan89 going to do if we don't need accountants anymore?

As for cutting spending. I would reform social security to make it solvent. Raise the retirement age, tweak the benefits, and means-test it so Warren Buffett and Bill Gates aren't getting paid. This can be done fairly easily because people receive a set amount each week for SS payments.

No argument from me on this one. SS is messy but it can be cleaned up with simple tweaks. We just need the whole state of Florida to calm down. Actuaries have forcasted many ways to make SS solvent. Problem is that not enough politicians have had the courage to risk their careers to make changes. BTW, I think SS is paid monthly.

Medicare and Medicaid are much more difficult, because it's difficult to tell how much people's medical payments will be. The best solution I see is to set up a voucher system. Give them a set limit for what they can spend for health care payments per month/year, etc. I realize this will rub a lot of people the wrong way, but we can't be using a band-aid to patch these programs up. We have to make some serious changes.

It's not difficult to tell how much medical needs are going to cost a large population over a year. Actuaries do this all the time. The first thing we need to do is throw Medicare Part D in the garbage. I never understood how this "socialist" unfunded legislation came from a Republican president and Republican Congress.

 

[Viggo]

A balanced budget amendment may get passed some day, but I think most conservatives have no clue how to realistically balance the budget right now without destroying the economy and/or ruining many Americans standard of living.

I agree to a certain extent. To attempt to balance the budget in a short period of time would be disastrous. I think it's something that has to be done over a longer period of time, say 10 years or so. The president and congress could set goals to cut spending in all areas by 2.5%-5% per year for a period of years. It should be done gradually so as not to upset an economic recovery.

Of course I would change the way our money is spent. I am on board with conservatives who say they wish we didn't give as much foreign aid. It is unfortunate for those countries but if we are going to pull back our spending it seems a good place to start. Unfortunately, if I had the power to change the way the US spent it's money some lobbyist lovin' representative would find a loophole to change everything again.

I wish we didn't give as much foreign aid as well. I understand that we bribe countries to a degree to leave us alone, but part of me thinks it's absurd to give money to countries like Pakistan, who play both sides in our war on terrorism.

Yeah, snake oil representatives will always find a way to game the system. It's so rampant now though that it's ridiculous.

This is all theoretically fantastic but you are talking about doing things that would destroy your balanced budget. Where is the money going to come from if you are going to reduce taxes this way?

I think if you cut tax rates and streamline the tax code with something like a fair tax, the economy would grow, and thus grow the pie. A growing economy would eventually increase the revenue that comes into the government. Not immediately but over a period of years. Kind of like finding the sweet spot on the Laffer curve. I think a lot of our tax rates now are past the sweet spot on the curve. Of course, if you don't believe in the Laffer Curve, you won't believe this.

The first thing we need to do is throw Medicare Part D in the garbage. I never understood how this "socialist" unfunded legislation came from a Republican president and Republican Congress.

I completely agree.


Since my Christmas vacation starts today and since I'll be travelling abroad with my fiancee, this will probably be my last post of the year for this thread. I'm going to hold off on any new questions until next year, but feel free to continue to reply to and discuss any questions that I've asked so far on this thread. I'll try to reply when I come back and I'll definitely rep anyone new posters to this thread when I get a chance.

That being said, thank all of you for an engaging, intelligent, and lively discussion. I was expecting to be a punching bag when I created this thread, but I'm pleased to say that this was not the case. I'm really proud of this thread and its posters. Thank you all again for making this one of the top threads on Newswire. I'm sure we can keep it that way.

Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah, Happy New Year! Have a safe and happy holiday season, everyone

P.S. I will also have a new user name when I come back. It should be a good laugh.