|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 4:04 am Post subject: Do we need a budget commission? |
|
|
"The public debt is the amount owed to individual investors, including foreign countries, but excluding money the government owes to its own trust funds. It has soared from $5.8 trillion to $7.6 trillion this year alone � and is more than half the size of the nation's economy for the first time since 1956...
The focus is on the White House as President Obama prepares his State of the Union address and 2011 budget. Lawmakers and lobbyists seeking to cut the record $1.4 trillion budget deficit and stabilize the debt want Obama to back the creation of a commission that would recommend spending cuts and tax increases and require a vote by Congress. It's a process that has worked since the 1980s on military base closings.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-12-30-debt_N.htm
I'm not in favor of a commission since we elect a Congress to do the work the commission would be tasked to do. However, given how Congress is structured to operate, it may be the only way to address the problem.
At this point, I say give Congress one year to show what they can do. If they fail, then try a commission the next year. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 4:15 am Post subject: Re: Do we need a budget commission? |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
I'm not in favor of a commission since we elect a Congress to do the work the commission would be tasked to do. However, given how Congress is structured to operate, it may be the only way to address the problem.
At this point, I say give Congress one year to show what they can do. If they fail, then try a commission in 2011. |
Doesn't Congress create commissions all the time? Administrative agencies are similar in their function to commissions, invested with a task and parameters by Congress and overseen by the President.
You're certainly right that Congress' structure makes it hard to cut spending in each Representative's prized district. Let's create the commission, and let them propose a budget cut on discretionary spending which Congress can approve or disapprove. Fiscal responsibility is too important to the future of our country to fail to act. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 4:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here's a Washington Post editorial on the same topic.
"President Obama has voiced support for such a plan, and 35 Democratic and Republican senators have signed on to legislation that would create a bipartisan commission with broad power to force painful spending cuts and tax increases through Congress.
Even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), an ardent opponent of the idea, has signaled in recent weeks that she could accept the establishment of a commission. The White House has been talking to Congress to try to craft a proposal that would not wholly relinquish congressional control over major decisions on taxes and spending." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 4:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
One part of the solution is taxes:
America must overcome its allergy to taxes
"Americans have not always hated taxes. The marginal tax rate was approximately 90% for the wealthiest Americans during World War II, but 85% to 90% of the public still described their tax rate as fair. In the mid-20th century, new payroll taxes were enacted to help pay for Social Security and Medicare, while federal taxes helped fund the Interstate Highway System, strengthened research and education at America's premier public universities and built the world's most powerful military."
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/12/29/2009-12-29_america_must_overcome_its_allergy_to_taxes.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 4:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Fiscal responsibility is too important to the future of our country to fail to act. |
I would probably agree if tax rates up to 90%, which we had during WWII, are on the table for discussion. As long as people only see budget cuts--meaning others give up something--as the only solution, then I'm not convinced they really put much stock in fiscal responsibility. In those cases, they seem to be attached to "Don't tax thee and don't tax me, tax that fella behind the tree'.
Either we're all in this together or we ain't. If we are, then shared sacrifice is the name of the game. If we ain't, then screw the future--I'm keepin' what's mine. When I started working, I was taxed to pay for my grandparents' generation; later on, for my parents' generation. If the plot now is to screw my generation in order to finance a cushy life for the next generation, I ain't buyin' it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Fiscal responsibility is too important to the future of our country to fail to act. |
I would probably agree if tax rates up to 90%, which we had during WWII, are on the table for discussion. As long as people only see budget cuts--meaning others give up something--as the only solution, then I'm not convinced they really put much stock in fiscal responsibility. In those cases, they seem to be attached to "Don't tax thee and don't tax me, tax that fella behind the tree'.
Either we're all in this together or we ain't. If we are, then shared sacrifice is the name of the game. If we ain't, then screw the future--I'm keepin' what's mine. When I started working, I was taxed to pay for my grandparents' generation; later on, for my parents' generation. If the plot now is to screw my generation in order to finance a cushy life for the next generation, I ain't buyin' it. |
90% taxes would lead to a DECREASE in the total tax take. The more you increase taxes, the less those people that actually produce something, produce. Why would you work an extra hour or expand production, if you were only getting a 10c on the dollar return on the effort. A complete dunce could see this, so why does this tripe still get trotted out? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007 Location: retired
|
Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
One part of the solution is taxes:
America must overcome its allergy to taxes
"Americans have not always hated taxes. The marginal tax rate was approximately 90% for the wealthiest Americans during World War II, but 85% to 90% of the public still described their tax rate as fair. In the mid-20th century, new payroll taxes were enacted to help pay for Social Security and Medicare, while federal taxes helped fund the Interstate Highway System, strengthened research and education at America's premier public universities and built the world's most powerful military."
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/12/29/2009-12-29_america_must_overcome_its_allergy_to_taxes.html |
The American tax burden is already terrible. Second highest corporate taxes on earth. Everything that moves is taxed. Plus the inflation tax.
http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/component/content/article/33-BearLair/10311
| Quote: |
| The current political-economic system is simply unsustainable; no economy can afford to pay for four giant zombie financial institutions, two substantial military adventures, a zombie-driven housing market, an exploding health-care bill and Goldman Sachs partners' lifestyle aspirations. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Reggie
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hopefully, we'll hit our credit card limit with our lenders soon and will have to stop living like the welfare queen America has become. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Fiscal responsibility is too important to the future of our country to fail to act. |
I would probably agree if tax rates up to 90%, which we had during WWII, are on the table for discussion. As long as people only see budget cuts--meaning others give up something--as the only solution, then I'm not convinced they really put much stock in fiscal responsibility. In those cases, they seem to be attached to "Don't tax thee and don't tax me, tax that fella behind the tree'.
Either we're all in this together or we ain't. If we are, then shared sacrifice is the name of the game. If we ain't, then screw the future--I'm keepin' what's mine. When I started working, I was taxed to pay for my grandparents' generation; later on, for my parents' generation. If the plot now is to screw my generation in order to finance a cushy life for the next generation, I ain't buyin' it. |
The problem is, Ya-Ta, you have to have a generational foundation, and we're no longer in a period of farmers' fertility. To provide the same support the previous generation got without cuts will require a larger tax burden.
Anyway, its really odd for a boomer to make the above argument. Its like a Southerner travelling forward in time from the 1850s to lecture us on race relations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Fiscal responsibility is too important to the future of our country to fail to act. |
I would probably agree if tax rates up to 90%, which we had during WWII, are on the table for discussion. As long as people only see budget cuts--meaning others give up something--as the only solution, then I'm not convinced they really put much stock in fiscal responsibility. In those cases, they seem to be attached to "Don't tax thee and don't tax me, tax that fella behind the tree'.
Either we're all in this together or we ain't. If we are, then shared sacrifice is the name of the game. If we ain't, then screw the future--I'm keepin' what's mine. When I started working, I was taxed to pay for my grandparents' generation; later on, for my parents' generation. If the plot now is to screw my generation in order to finance a cushy life for the next generation, I ain't buyin' it. |
The problem is, Ya-Ta, you have to have a generational foundation, and we're no longer in a period of farmers' fertility. To provide the same support the previous generation got without cuts will require a larger tax burden.
Anyway, its really odd for a boomer to make the above argument. Its like a Southerner travelling forward in time from the 1850s to lecture us on race relations. |
US population 1960: 179,323,175 (end of the baby boom)
US population 2000: 281,421,906
...and we've passed 300,000,000. While fertility is down, immigration is way up.
As I said, I'm not opposed to cuts in benefits if I see that everyone is sharing the burdens of fixing the problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|