YOU can balance the budget
So today, the New York Times has an article/online piece allowing you to balance the budget. It is great.
You should try it, and then report back a) how long it took you, and b) your ratio of spending cuts to tax increases.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html
It took me 5 minutes to balance the budget, why can’t Congress/Obama do it? I got a surplus.
73% spending cuts, 27% tax increases on the richest 2% (sorry, but life is unfair).
If you want edit me? just go to your profile than add description text as many you like. ^_*
Sam, I think your increase on taxes for the top 2% is too low. Let me use Walmart as an example. The Walton family, collectively, is worth near $100 billion dollars. And how did they build this wealth? Instead of buying and supporting American manufactures, they bought cheap imports, causing thousands of American manufacturers to close their doors, and hundreds of thousands of employees to lose their jobs. Further, they went into communities all over America and started selling their goods cheaper than
local retailers could buy them, directly causing many thousands of retail shops to close their doors; and of course, many more hundreds of thousands of retail employees to lose their jobs.
Then, on top of all this, they hire all these desperate people needing jobs, to work in their stores and warehouses at very low wages and almost no benefits. In other words, Walmart has
clawed their way to great wealth at the expense of millions of
American workers powerless to resist.
And, of course, there’s the ‘trickle down’ effect. A worker who made $40,000 before Walmart caused him to lose his job, and is now earning $20,000 per year, is going to result in a drop in taxes collected, causing shortages for government agencies needing the revenue to operate. Services then have to be cut, but even then, local taxes are raised to try to make up the shortages.
So I don’t look at higher taxes on the very wealthy as redistribution of wealth. I see it as a necessary means of
1making them contribute their fair share to the costs of running this great country of ours.
Hambone, you commie, socialist, Obama-lover……. I agree.
The top 1% used to own 9% of the wealth in 1976, now it is 23%. The wealth has already been redistributed, we want it back now.
And with all due respect to Fox News, it isn’t “class warfare.” The French and Russian revolutions were class warfare, this ain’t it.
But I’d like to know everyone’s numbers: not just commentary….
2I tried it and got tired of the absurdity of it. But then again I was an accounting major, not an economics major.
3Sorry TM, but that is a copout. There are plenty of absurd ways we waste 5 minutes in a day. You can invest 5 minutes. What we need is more accountants running things!
The exercise at least provides some education on what are the trade offs and ramifications.
Balance the budget “dude”….do it, all the cool kids are…..
4Well personally I dont think there are enough choices in the puzzle. Some people actually believe tax cuts INCREASE revenue, thereby increasing tax revenues. Where was that choice? Besides there is a huge internet out there. Until I reach the end of it, there are much more fun things to do with my 15 minutes!
5TM: it would be intersting for you to tell us what choices were not in the puzzle. (magic beans not being allowed).
The people who believe cutting tax rates increase revenue are fooling themselves. The “laffer curve” is theoretical and has not been proven in the US to work (although some data exists that it worked in Ireland, but it depends on the shape of the curve and where you are on it). Reagan cut taxes, and then raised them again and again.
My friend Jeff is big proponent of this, and I’ll buy it when it is shown to work. Until then, I don’t. And don’t cite the Bush tax cuts as examples since the deficit skyrocketed. And we all now know that the economy got a boost from all that stupid easy mortgage credit, no the tax cuts……
6Geez, and when I read the teaser in my email, I thought Sam was commenting on the deficit commission. I would love to know what you guys thought about that. I was expecting to hate it, and to be honest, I can live with it. Eliminate all deductions, but drop rates. Reduce defense. Raise the gas tax as little (I don’t like that, but if I had to accept or reject the whole package, I’d live with it)…raise the retirement age..although I would raise it sooner. On balance, I thought it wasn’t bad.
7I could live with it as well. They punted on some of the hard issues. Where are you with the puzzle in the NYT’s?
8I haven’t had time to look at the puzzle yet. I don’t work for doctors…I can’t do NYT’s fun during the day…:) I’ll go to the link in the next couple of days and report back.
9Jeff would you like me to send you some of my magic beans, then you dont need to work the puzzle.
10Let’s be hypothetically rediculous for one moment. Let’s say that all corporations paid no taxes of any kind. Would they have incentive to leverage and expand to make more money? You bet they would! Would this expansion create jobs? You bet it would. Would the jobs create taxable income? You bet they would. Would the tax revenue be more than the amount that would have been otherwise taken from the company? In many cases, I believe that it would. Would unemployment go down? You bet it would. Would household spending go up? You bet it would! Would sales tax revenues increase? You bet they would. Would municipalities and states be better off than they are today with increased sales tax revenues? You bet they would.
The problem most of you have here is that you can’t see or won’t admit how complicated and interwoven our current tax systems and other infrastructures are. It’s not “just like running your household budget.” We as individuals don’t have the ability to tax and to employ people.
There is enough waste in the military to balance the budget without lifting tax rates one percent and without excluding current deductions/tax credits.
Speaking of tax credits, the reduction of the capital gains tax would spur sales of capital items beyond our wildest dreams. These sales would increase tax revenue because of additional activity alone. Reinvestment would be likely, but spending would also likely increase. This spending would raise more sales tax revenue, which again, is good for state and local governments. The reinvestment would have some real estate involved, which would be good for real estate values. Increase in real estate values may make it possible for larger home equity loans, which would be used for purchasing stuff, which means more sales taxes. This spending would be good for durable goods most likely. So factories and warehouses hire more people, who pay more taxes and spend more money, which spurs more sales tax.
Making sense? Or are y’all still in a fog?
11Double D you been smoking my magic beans???
12Double D …you are making a lot of sense
The Obomocrats or Husseinocrats want to get into your pockets and then they are convinced MORE government is the answer,becuase they know what is best
Any moron that follows and supports that logic have their head in the sand
13And Double D one other thing…US Corporations are flush with Cash $$ and want to expand and want to hire and get moving onward….BUTTT, Barrack Hussein has set up this NON FRIENDLY business environment, wants to tax and tax, and with Hussein-O-care, businesses have no idea what their increased bill will amount too….so we are STUCK, but for only 26 more months….uh, oh yeah, lets print more money, yeah thats the ticket
14Everyone…this was from this past Sunday’s
news shows :
Obama said : “Some people in DC talk about me like a dog”……
Fred Thompson replied : “Maybe it’s because he keeps treating this country like a fire hydrant”
15Big talk! hit the link and try to balance the budget. that was the point!
16No thanks. I’ll stick to smoking my magic beans.
17Sam…I tried to “balance the budget”, but was way over my head…..So If I am to understand, if the US suddenly has to go somewhere in the world to defend freedom and liberty ( because no one else can or has interest) or has to protect us from harm, since you are balancing the budget, if a “blip” like that occurs, you say sorry, do not have the money…oh, well
18Sam. Forget the budget. Every month, once the Treasury has written checks for $210 billion, they stop. Next problem?
19Ok, Sam, I got the budget balanced. Well, there’s a $300 billion surplus in 2030. 14% tax increases and 86% spending cuts. My tax increases were eliminating the health insurance deduction and eliminating all deductions in return for lower marginal rates. I also went for the Kyl estate tax plan. My only regret was that I could only cut the federal work force by 10%
20Congrats to Jeff, the rest of you get a razzie. It was a simple exercise. Why don’t you just change the website from “twisted muser” to “bitch about obama”. I had hoped to get interesting feedback through the exercise to see how far apart people really are, but now I am forced to respond to the points you used to cop out of the exercise.
Defense: our defense budget is greater than the next largest 26 defense budgets combined!!! Europe and Japan and S. Korea can start increasing theirs if they want to be secure.
Magic Beans: you forfeit your right to bitch about the budget.
Corporate tax rates: what have you been smoking? Yes, we cut coporate taxes and they will magically increase hiring. Are you f’ng nuts? They will pay their top execs huge bonuses. And I suppose if we de-regulate the finacial industry (like we did in 1999) I suppose they won’t sell mortgages that people can’t pay back, won’t give AAA ratings to shit bonds, and won’t sell crap to people while at the same time buying insurance on it when it fails. OOPS,they did do all that. What a dreamland do you live in.
Non friendly Obama: I just love this vague accusation that business’s want to hire but because mean old Obama is “non friendly” they aren’t doing it. No data, no facts, just FOX news bullshit. “Oh, the president is mean to me so I can’t hire anyone………..”
Man up people, go balance the budget.
Jeff: Would you split the difference with me on my 23% tax cuts vs. your 14% to have it done? If so, you and should run the country.
21I would change the name of the blog but then in two years I would have to change it again. How about instead I create a special page for Obamanites and title it “my head is up my ass” and you guys can write all you want. Just saying.
22Why doesn’t “Anonymous” grow a pair and not be a mystery?
23What a bunch of chickens. This was supposed to be an interesting excercise to see how far about we really are, and most of you just want to bitch or use it as an excuse to bitch about Obama. Man up people.
Jeff: if you split the difference on me 14% vs. 23% tax cuts, then we should run the country and we’d have it done.
Since most of you chickened out, I’m forced to respond:
Magic beans: you forfeit your right to bitch about the deficit.
Corportate tax: what are you smoking. If you cut rates why do you think corporations will magically start hiring as opposed to paying themselves big bonuses? And Greenspan thought that if they deregulated the financial industry “corporations would act responsibly.” How did that turn out?
Non-friendly: Enough of the not data, no evidence, no fact b/s about “business would hire if only Obama wasn’t so non-friendly to them” fox news b/s. Great to make a charge that can’t be substantiated by the facts either way……
24Sam, If I didn’t know better i would think you were 12! I mean come on …”chickens”! FYI, this was a half baked exercise with very limited choices. Not participating in this, does not cause me to forfeit my right to “bitch” about the deficit or anything else.
25I can’t stop my fingers from typing. Corporate responsibility, a recent history:
-Deregulate the financial industry so that we can “innovate” (translation gamble with people’s money)
-Sell “no documentation” mortgages to people who obvisiouly can’t pay in order to increase commissions.
-Take these pile of crap mortgages and give them AAA ratings even though they are composed of crap.
-Actively make these piles of crap as stinky as possible and sell them to pension funds, governments etc.
-Buy insurance against them so that when they fail, you make tons of money.
-Create credit default swaps out of them so you can leverage everthing 30, 40, 50, 100 to one.
-When all the sh-t hits the fan, ask the Government under a GOP “free market” president to bail you out.
-take the bailout money and pay yourself big bonuses!!!!!
ahhh corporate responsibity in the free market……………
26Sam,
The legislation that created the legal framework for subprime mortgages and credit swaps was passed by Congress in November by a lame duck Congress and signed in to law by a lame duck Democrat named Bill Clinton. It was promoted by Wall Street and Alan Greenspan, who was the most influencial person in DC at the time. Had Slick Willie vetoed it, it would have likely died. However, he was too busy stealing china from the White House on his way out.
It’s it funny how facts change things when they get in the way of the press’ view of things?
27Lets talk about corporate responsibility Sam, since you love to talk about it so much. Lets talk about the 111 waivers so far that the Obama administration has granted to companies seeking to be exempt from the Health care bill. You’ll have to explain this one to me because it seems to me if its such a great bill it should apply to everyone. I’m waiting. No bullshit answers or snarky remarks this time please.
28Limited options! Limited options?
-defense, medicare, social security, income taxes, earmarks, estate tax, etc. etc. what more options did you want?
29So basically you have no answer as to why Obama keeps granting these waivers?
30why don’t you just change the name of the website to “bashobama.com”?
if you can’t even step up to try the NYT puzzle and actually get some discussion going on priorities, options, etc, then it just becomes bash obama 24 X 7.
31So you can throw out gop this or bush that but I ask why Obama is giving out waivers and you accuse me of Obama bashing? There was no bashing. Its a legitimate question that either you won’t or can’t answer.
32TM….If you are going to change the name of this blog as Sudden Sam suggests….perhaps bashbarackkhussein.com would be better…what do y’all think ?
33Boys, boys..break it up! Since Sam wants a discussion around ideas, here are mine for the two big entitlements. The NY Times thing didn’t allow you to have your own options.
Social Security- We index the retirement age to life expectancy. I think when this got enacted, the life expectancy was about 66. Thusly, it was created to provide, on average, 1 year of benefits. I am not suggesting that. How about life expentancy less 12. If it is 78 today, SS kicks in at 66. If medical advances take it to 85, it goes to 73. If you don’t do that, I don’t know how you ever get out of this mess.
Medicare- As I think we all know, alot of this money gets spent at the end of life on all sorts of crazy Hail Mary treatments. Here’s the deal. Medicare should not pay for any curative treatment for people who meet the definition of hospice unless you pay more. So, when you qualify for Medicare, you either elect standard Medicare benefits, or the extraordinary treatment benefits. If you choose the latter, you pay an extra premium to fund it when the time comes. If not, you don’t get the treatment. If the time comes, and you didn’t pay the premium, you can still get the treatment if you want to pay privately. We already have a definition of hospice. It’s when you’re life expetancy is 6 months or less. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to require doctors to be straight with patients and make this declaration. None of this is cruel. Hospice is a great service, and keeps people comfortable in their last days, helps people get affairs in order, and provides great support to family members. That will bend the cost curve.
34Jeff with all due respect, there is nothing to break up. I’m just trying top understand why these companies are being allowed to opt out of the program.
35DEATH PANELS! DEATH PANELS!
Actually I am fine with your quite sensible, quite rational ideas. And thanks for getting “it” that the whole purpose of this posting was to generate thought and discussion around budget deficits as opposed to just bitching about them.
As for waivers, I really just could care less. What Obama should have done is a)offered Medicare to anyone under 65 who wanted to pay for it, pre-tax; b) elimiated Medicaid program and used those dollars to pay for poor people to get medicare; and c) allowed doctors and hospitals to turn away people who can’t/won’t pay – that way you aren’t forcing people to buy health insurance, but you aren’t forcing my ortho docs to treat them for free either.
Problem solved.
36Problem is he didn’t do that. Problem is he is letting companies off the hook. Problem is we don’t know why. Sam you quite correctly have slammed bush and republicans for preferential treatment that caused wall st problems. How is this any different?
37TM..I agree with you as well. The whole bill is a mess. I think I said it on your blog when the debate was going on. My point then was that there are, maybe 1.5 million people with a chronic condition in this country that can’t get insurance because of a pre-existing condition is eliminating them entirely or is making it cost prohibitive. We could have come up with a solution for them. Instead we created a 300 million person solution not many people wanted. Worse yet, the solution is creating so many crushing problems that everyone wants out. And those 1.5 million people? It turns out that they can get insurance now, and exactly 8700 people nationwide have chosen to do it. In West Virginia, exactly 1 person has. So much for the crisis.
The health cost curve has been created because people don’t have skin in the cost. That is why I suggested what I have for Medicare. The same principles could be applied to commerical insurance.
As long as the government is trying to “solve” problems like this, we will have two systems. One for big companies with influence, and one for SadSam’sFriendJeff.
38Agreed! Too many things have been caused by “not having skin” in the game. I think that was one of the causes of the housing meltdown. Yes too many bad loans were given, but also not requiring a decent down payment, you instantly have no equity, and the slightest downturn your upside down. At that point, why would you hang around! I put 30 percent on my house and guess what, it went down 30 percent. At least it wasnt upside down, and the area is recovering now. I know its a different, topic, but I’m venting now!
39