This is a start!!!!!

[Balta1701]

Status quo is fine by me on current tax levels, as our current 'state' wouldn't allow for further cuts.  The talk of "make wealthy people pay their fair share" from the Democrats today will effect a lot of the middle class (a household income of somewhere about $70K and above is 'rich' from what I've seen) by raising their taxes.

 

I never in the world would think I (well my family) would qualify for "rich" by today's Democratic Party, but I do, and my taxes would go up.  And that's sad, because I sure as hell ain't 'rich'.

So in other words, you'd be in favor of much higher taxes on the folks who make 2x as much as your family in order to end the current period of deficit spending?

[kapkomet]

So in other words, you'd be in favor of much higher taxes on the folks who make 2x as much as your family in order to end the current period of deficit spending? 

No, I said 'status quo' combined with reductions in spending.

 

 

 

[Balta1701]

No, I said 'status quo' combined with reductions in spending.

 

 

 

Hehe, just messing with you.

 

Seriously though, since we're on this discussion, what exactly is it you would like to cut? Right now, the U.S. yearly deficit is something in the $300-$400 billion range depending on when exactly you account for Bush's war. Discretionary spending (not Social Security, Medicare, or interest on the debt) in 2005 was about $1 trillion dollars. A little over 1/2 of that went to defense spending/Homeland security. Which basically means that you would have to do away with the entire federal government in order to balance the budget through spending cuts.

 

So, basically, we'd be talking about no highways, no funding for research, no health care infrastructure, no federal court system, no prisons, no airport security, no national park system, no FBI, no border security whatsoever, no EPA...well you get the idea.

 

Your only other options are some combination of ending the Iraq war and dramatically reducing defense spending, raising the retirement age, eliminating Medicare entirely, and raising taxes to pay down some of the debt (thus reducing the yearly interest payments).

[Rex Kickass]

We could just default on our loans. That would save us a lot of servicing money.

[NorthSideSox72]

Hehe, just messing with you.

 

Seriously though, since we're on this discussion, what exactly is it you would like to cut?  Right now, the U.S. yearly deficit is something in the $300-$400 billion range depending on when exactly you account for Bush's war.  Discretionary spending (not Social Security, Medicare, or interest on the debt) in 2005 was about $1 trillion dollars.  A little over 1/2 of that went to defense spending/Homeland security.  Which basically means that you would have to do away with the entire federal government in order to balance the budget through spending cuts.

 

So, basically, we'd be talking about no highways, no funding for research, no health care infrastructure, no federal court system, no prisons, no airport security, no national park system, no FBI, no border security whatsoever, no EPA...well you get the idea.

 

Your only other options are some combination of ending the Iraq war and dramatically reducing defense spending, raising the retirement age, eliminating Medicare entirely, and raising taxes to pay down some of the debt (thus reducing the yearly interest payments).

The "other" option is to structure the federal government and all its agencies to have business-like expectations for efficiency and budgetary constraint. Lots of politicians have talked about cutting waste, but those promises usually end up being either complete BS, or based on the idea that just giving agencies less money will make them more efficient (which is just plain assinine). I'd like to see the pro-business GOP (or anyone, really) stand up and set the bar for the federal government to be run like a business. The amount you give agencies isn't the key factor in efficiency - its what the produce per dollar.

[NorthSideSox72]

We could just default on our loans. That would save us a lot of servicing money.

Ah yes, the great American solution - declare bankruptcy.

:puke

[Rex Kickass]

Can't even do that anymore. They changed the laws.

 

There is no hope!

[NorthSideSox72]

Can't even do that anymore. They changed the laws.

 

There is no hope!

I assume you are referring to my bankruptcy post. In which case, I'll say that I agreed with that law chance (for the most part).

[Cknolls]

You want to thank them for doing their patriotic duty too, eh?

 

CIA, NSA, and similar agency employees take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not to stick their heads in the sand when the actions of the administration controvert the Constitution.

 

The people with questionable morals are the agency officials who knew about rendition with intent to torture and domestic warrrentless spying and didn't think it was their place to question it.

 

I'm dizzy from you're spinning.

[Rex Kickass]

The Bankruptcy law was absolutely anti-middle class and a total handout to people at Bank of America, Capitol One, and other banks who don't want to be responsible lenders and make sure they get their 22% interest from anyone stupid enough to take the card.

[NorthSideSox72]

The Bankruptcy law was absolutely anti-middle class and a total handout to people at Bank of America, Capitol One, and other banks who don't want to be responsible lenders and make sure they get their 22% interest from anyone stupid enough to take the card.

I'm afraid I don't agree. I think the personal bankruptcy laws in this country were too lax then, and probably still too lax now. People get in trouble financially, often times, because they spend more than they can. Yes, there are families who cannot afford their needs, but many of them make that complaint while watching their satellite TVs.

 

Americans, in general, have lost the concept of "need". You NEED food, clothing, water and shelter, and you might be able to add health care and a few other things to that. Bot nowadays, things like cell phones and cable TV and a car are looked as as needs, when they truly are not. I realize this makes me sound insensitive, but it is my feeling on the matter.

 

Now, I do NOT agree with the aspects of those bankrputcy law changes that gave breaks to businesses, which did not need them. The business bankruptcy laws are also, IMHO, too lax.

[Balta1701]

I'm afraid I don't agree.  I think the personal bankruptcy laws in this country were too lax then, and probably still too lax now.  People get in trouble financially, often times, because they spend more than they can.  Yes, there are families who cannot afford their needs, but many of them make that complaint while watching their satellite TVs.

 

Americans, in general, have lost the concept of "need".  You NEED food, clothing, water and shelter, and you might be able to add health care and a few other things to that.  Bot nowadays, things like cell phones and cable TV and a car are looked as as needs, when they truly are not.  I realize this makes me sound insensitive, but it is my feeling on the matter.

A significant majority of the low-income bankruptcy filers wind up doing so because of medical expenses, not because of satellite TV.

[NorthSideSox72]

A significant majority of the low-income bankruptcy filers wind up doing so because of medical expenses, not because of satellite TV.

I realize this will make me sound harsh, but I firmly believe that many of those who claim that medical expenses pushed them into bankruptcy were also spending a lot of money on things they consider "needs" that simply are not. I am NOT saying ALL of them, mind you - but a big chunk. I don't have statistics to share because, well, there are none (has anyone ever studied people's actual spending habits for the years prior to bankruptcies?).

[Balta1701]

I realize this will make me sound harsh, but I firmly believe that many of those who claim that medical expenses pushed them into bankruptcy were also spending a lot of money on things they consider "needs" that simply are not.  I am NOT saying ALL of them, mind you - but a big chunk.  I don't have statistics to share because, well, there are none (has anyone ever studied people's actual spending habits for the years prior to bankruptcies?).

I think what usually happens is that in the years prior to bankruptcies, people are living like most Americans these days, paycheck to paycheck. Then an unexpected expense arises, usually either the loss of a job or a large health care issue. So yes, they were probably using things like satellite TV beforehand, and oftentimes had contracts with companies which would cost more to break, and then suddenly they're no longer able to afford to go paycheck to paycheck.

 

Of course, at the upper income levels, yeah there are a decent number of companies and businesses who take advantage of the bankruptcy laws in order to protect their assets, but I probably have as little concern for them as you do. When you're making $100k or more per year (just picking a random number) then a health expense shouldn't knock you into bankruptcy.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think what usually happens is that in the years prior to bankruptcies, people are living like most Americans these days, paycheck to paycheck.  Then an unexpected expense arises, usually either the loss of a job or a large health care issue.  So yes, they were probably using things like satellite TV beforehand, and oftentimes had contracts with companies which would cost more to break, and then suddenly they're no longer able to afford to go paycheck to paycheck.

 

Of course, at the upper income levels, yeah there are a decent number of companies and businesses who take advantage of the bankruptcy laws in order to protect their assets, but I probably have as little concern for them as you do.  When you're making $100k or more per year (just picking a random number) then a health expense shouldn't knock you into bankruptcy.

I agree with most of what you say here. And its true I feel less sympathy towards someone making 100k who declares bankruptcy than someone who makes 20k (all else equal).

 

But the "contracts are choices as well, for things that again, are not necessities. Those companies are almost always willing to negotiate terms as well, rather than have their customers disappear.