Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
A challenge to those on the left
Author Message
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 44,133
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 1110
I Root For: GT, USC Upstate
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #11
RE: A challenge to those on the left
Come on Tom/Mach/Fitbud. I know you're reading this. I can get to balanced, but I want to see if you can first, and what you'd cut to get there.
12-22-2017 02:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Redwingtom Offline
God, save us.
*

Posts: 29,060
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 493
I Root For: B-G-S-U !!!!
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Post: #12
RE: A challenge to those on the left
Sorry man. I'm swamped at work and just don't have time to devote to it. But the short answer, there isn't much that I would NOT cut. I would just a balanced approach across all agencies. But as I said, on the entitlements, I'd actually spend some up front money to fix the systems to get rid of the fraud.
12-22-2017 02:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Machiavelli Offline
Back to Reality. Oh there goes Gravity
*

Posts: 21,177
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation: 506
I Root For: BGSU
Location:
Post: #13
RE: A challenge to those on the left
Consumption Tax. We didn’t get here overnight and were not going to get out of it overnight either. We’ve went from tax and spend Democrats to borrow and spend Republicans. You can’t cut spending and remain viable in November. It’s very very easy to say. Hey we have to cut spending. Very hard in principle. It’s like I tell my daughter. Pay zero attention to what “he” says. Only pay attention to his actions.
12-22-2017 02:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 20,496
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 574
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #14
A challenge to those on the left
(12-22-2017 02:57 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Consumption Tax. We didn’t get here overnight and were not going to get out of it overnight either. We’ve went from tax and spend Democrats to borrow and spend Republicans. You can’t cut spending and remain viable in November. It’s very very easy to say. Hey we have to cut spending. Very hard in principle. It’s like I tell my daughter. Pay zero attention to what “he” says. Only pay attention to his actions.

I’m for some form of consumption tax. I’d like a transaction tax on securities to try to slow the trading pace and longer holding of assets to qualify for a lower capital gains tax that is tiered based on time held. Also any options given to management should be ordinary income unless it takes five or more years to vest.

Publicly traded companies tend to think quarterly too much instead of long-term.

My brother-in-law is a plant manager working for a privately held company that bought it from a publicly held company. The approach to upgrades, maintenance and employee benefits are radically different. One of my closest friends works for a privately held competitor. Neither wants to ever work for a publicly held again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
12-23-2017 08:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CG_Hawk06 Offline
CWO of the Board
*

Posts: 7,646
Joined: Dec 2014
Reputation: 211
I Root For: UNCW
Location: Virginia
Post: #15
RE: A challenge to those on the left
The quickest cut I'd make is international aid.

Sending billions to countries that shake our hands with their right and hand money to organizations killing us with their left is unacceptable.

If the world wants our help policing the globe, they'll have to pay for whatever they want in their region.

Kick the UN out of the country, and severely cut funding to it.

Trim TSA down extremely. Talk about a waste of money.
12-24-2017 01:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 44,133
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 1110
I Root For: GT, USC Upstate
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #16
RE: A challenge to those on the left
(12-24-2017 01:27 AM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  The quickest cut I'd make is international aid.

Sending billions to countries that shake our hands with their right and hand money to organizations killing us with their left is unacceptable.

If the world wants our help policing the globe, they'll have to pay for whatever they want in their region.

Kick the UN out of the country, and severely cut funding to it.

Trim TSA down extremely. Talk about a waste of money.

I can go along with almost all of that. I'd balk at all international aid. I'm perfectly OK helping out some outposts of Western Civilization in the developing world. But for the parts of the world that embrace collectivism? SHUT THE FUNDING DOWN YESTERDAY.

But all of the above are drops in the bucket. You can slash all to zero and you won't even dent the deficit much, let alone the debt.
12-25-2017 01:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CG_Hawk06 Offline
CWO of the Board
*

Posts: 7,646
Joined: Dec 2014
Reputation: 211
I Root For: UNCW
Location: Virginia
Post: #17
RE: A challenge to those on the left
(12-25-2017 01:57 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  
(12-24-2017 01:27 AM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  The quickest cut I'd make is international aid.

Sending billions to countries that shake our hands with their right and hand money to organizations killing us with their left is unacceptable.

If the world wants our help policing the globe, they'll have to pay for whatever they want in their region.

Kick the UN out of the country, and severely cut funding to it.

Trim TSA down extremely. Talk about a waste of money.

I can go along with almost all of that. I'd balk at all international aid. I'm perfectly OK helping out some outposts of Western Civilization in the developing world. But for the parts of the world that embrace collectivism? SHUT THE FUNDING DOWN YESTERDAY.

But all of the above are drops in the bucket. You can slash all to zero and you won't even dent the deficit much, let alone the debt.

Very true, but keeping American money in America is important to me. IMO, letting millions/billions go overseas so often was a result of initially sending smaller amounts with no public outcry. The pot grew and grew and grew, and the American public saw no difference overall. The 'ol boiling frog trick.
12-26-2017 04:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DogPoundNorth Offline
Coach Carey Loves His Wife
*

Posts: 6,691
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 44
I Root For: NIU
Location: Chicago
Post: #18
RE: A challenge to those on the left
(12-21-2017 02:16 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Balance the federal budget.

I genuinely want to see somebody from the left have to make the tough choices required for this country to live within its means. Because it will *require* massive spending slashes in entitlements and defense IMO. There's just not enough money elsewhere, including a 100% tax on all income over $500,000/yr, to make up that gap.

Ask your party why they just added 1.5 Trillion dollars to the deficit so that they could give the ultra rich a lot more money. Then we can talk about how “entitlements” as you call them, even though we have all paid into Medicare and social security, so that’s our money, need to be cut.

I’d start with the defense budget and pointless wars. Also, I’d make corporations, whom your party calls “people” actually pay taxes. Along with the major rich who hide their money in off shore accounts. The fact I pay more in taxes than donnny boy and his friends is criminal.
12-26-2017 09:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 44,133
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 1110
I Root For: GT, USC Upstate
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #19
RE: A challenge to those on the left
(12-26-2017 09:40 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  
(12-21-2017 02:16 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Balance the federal budget.

I genuinely want to see somebody from the left have to make the tough choices required for this country to live within its means. Because it will *require* massive spending slashes in entitlements and defense IMO. There's just not enough money elsewhere, including a 100% tax on all income over $500,000/yr, to make up that gap.

Ask your party why they just added 1.5 Trillion dollars to the deficit so that they could give the ultra rich a lot more money. Then we can talk about how “entitlements” as you call them, even though we have all paid into Medicare and social security, so that’s our money, need to be cut.

I’d start with the defense budget and pointless wars. Also, I’d make corporations, whom your party calls “people” actually pay taxes. Along with the major rich who hide their money in off shore accounts. The fact I pay more in taxes than donnny boy and his friends is criminal.

I approved this primarily to serve as an example of what a crappy and unacceptable post is on this board.

You assumed I'm Republican. I'm not. I would ask "my party" what they think about that, but they have 0 elected officials at the federal level.

You also wrongly (and probably deliberately) panned the tax overhaul as simply a give away to the rich. Which also assumes rather arrogantly that the government has first claim to the wealth they produce. If you indeed derive your policy decisions from jealousy of those more wealthy than you -- when just being a US citizen puts you in the top 0.1% of wealth in THE ENTIRE WORLD -- you desperately need a reality check, some enhanced perspective, and to unplug from whatever propaganda is getting spoon fed to you.

The defense budget and pointless wars. Now we're getting somewhere. What in SPECIFIC would you cut? And while you're pointing fingers of hypocrisy, here's a whopper for you:

12-26-2017 08:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
I45owl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,828
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 172
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Dallas, TX

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #20
RE: A challenge to those on the left
My approach to taxation and budgeting would center on these pillars:
  • Comprehensive Tax Reform (flat structure, no deductions)
  • Elimination of Social Welfare programs that contribute to the poverty trap and replace them with a Negative Income Tax
  • Line-Item Veto
  • Bismarck Health Plan

What it would require to get there is that you would need a president who is not encumbered by one political party or the other. You would have to leverage enough votes for Tax Reform by providing benefits on the lower-income side like a Negative Income Tax while removing stacked social welfare programs. Likewise, balance universal health coverage aspects provided by the kind of Health Care Plan proposed by Owl 69/70/75 paired with a line-item veto in order to get enough votes for both to pass. I would like to see a president parlay a repeal of the War Powers Act to get a line-item veto (shift one overreach of presidential power for another), helping to reduce the defense department share of the budget deficit in the process.

The approach that I think it would require politically is to combine enough votes from politicians with enough genuine interest in those programs to be willing to trade votes on aspects of the program that they wouldn't normally agree with, and pols who are pressured into agreeing to vote on one or more of the above pillars due to public pressure.

One basic problem is that we are essentially 12-13 years into a toxic political environment whose roots really run at least 25 years or so in the form of binding "no new taxes" pledges, congressional scorecards, and terms like "RINO".

Long gone are politicians like Tip O'Neil willing to genuinely work across party lines... I'd venture that votes along strict party lines are far more common today than they were 30 years ago or more... gone with the Blue-Dog Democrats and the Golden Fleece Award.

Whatever passes for cross-party voting is probably limited to niche spending programs that only serve to benefit local campaign contributors. Without the line-item veto, I think bringing the budget under control is a futile task. There are those that disagree, but the question is how to return to a long-gone Congressional ethic?

The Line-Item Veto Won't Work - Foundation for Economic Education - Working for a free and prosperous world
Quote:In our view, the malady stems from a change in the implicit “Constitutional ethic” describing the relationship between private economic actions and the government. For the first century or so of our nation’s existence, there was a commonly held view which placed most private economic activity outside the domain of government policy. The implication of this ethic is profound. If no one believes that the government is (or should be) the guarantor of income security, government transfer payments do not inflate the budget. If government intervention in private markets is not considered appropriate, agricultural price support programs do not drain the treasury.

The basic pillars I've outlined essentially attempt to contain wealth transfers that the above authors (Cott and Bohannon) find to be the root of the problem. Social welfare would be focused in direct transfers (negative income tax) and health care (which is a growing portion of the economy. I think that the public appeal of targeted subsidies - agricultural or otherwise - would be less appealing when you've also eliminated the myriad of targeted social welfare programs.

ibid
Quote:Our nation now finds itself in a situation where government wealth transfers have extended themselves into every nook and cranny of our economic life. Moreover, all social and economic ills, real or imagined, are viewed as a legitimate domain for a new government program. This is the new ethic.

The line-item veto does not arrest this process, let alone enable us to regain what we have lost. Regardless of protestations to the contrary, Presidents are political animals, indeed the most successful of the species. All members of the species find serving special-interest constituencies irresistible. This insures their survival.

The rigid application of the two-party system has bred the kind of political animals that we have, and I think it would take someone not invested in that system to really change how Congress functions. I'd like to think that is the promise that most Trump voters saw in Trump, but instead he has basically asked politicians to trade adherence to the party platform for personal loyalty to Donald Trump. What we have is the political inverse of Barack Obama, and what we will see after the next election or the one that follows is the same kind of reactionary response - while Trump is doing everything he can in his role as anti-Obama to erase the legacy of Barack Obama, the anti-Trump will do everything he or she or xhe can do to erase the legacy of Donald Trump... probably involving implementation of every nonsensical regulation they can conceive of, coupled with immediately doubling the corporate income tax. I think it's unlikely that there will be much of anything else of substance to Trump's legacy.
12-27-2017 05:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.