KCRag Forum

phuqueue wrote: Man for a second I was like "wait holy hell how did they bring the deficit down to $200 billion for next year, what did I miss"

aknowledgeableperson wrote: The problem with the stimulus was that it was not all stimulus.  It contained funding for many social programs that were on the long Dem wish list, such as $2B for Head Start, that had nothing to do with the economy.

chrizow wrote: yeah, there is no correlation between education and the economy.

he leaders of President Barack Obama's bipartisan deficit commission launched a daring assault on mushrooming federal deficits on Wednesday, proposing reducing annual cost-of-living increases for Social Security, gradually raising the retirement age to 69 and taking aim at popular tax breaks such as the mortgage interest deduction.

As part of a proposal to wrestle $1-trillion-plus deficits under control, their plan would also curb the growth of Medicare. It came a week after voters put Republicans back in charge of the House and told Washington that the government is too big.

However, the plan by Chairman Erskine Bowles and former Sen. Alan Simpson, the co-chairman, doesn't look like it can win the support from 14 commission members that is needed to force a debate in Congress. Bowles is a Democrat and was former President Bill Clinton's White House chief of staff. Simpson is a Wyoming Republican....

Other proposals by Bowles and Simpson include:

_Increasing the gas tax by 15 cents a gallon to fund transportation programs.

_A three-year freeze in the pay of most federal employees and a 10 percent cut in the federal work force.

_Eliminating all congressional pet projects, known as earmarks.

Pass tax reform that dramatically reduces rates, simplifies the
code, broadens the base, and reduces the deficit.

chrizow wrote: yeah, there is no correlation between education and the economy.

grovester wrote: First off, by definition, they are not supposed to be sustained.  The stimulus is a substitute for the private sector that has withdrawn from spending due to the banking/credit crisis.  It is to bridge the gap until recovery or at least stabilization occurs.  That being said, lots of road crews didn't get laid off, lots of cops and teachers didn't get laid off, etc, etc, etc.

phuqueue wrote: I haven't got time to read the entire PDF right now, but I'll try to get to it later.  I will say this part:

sounds like the same snake oil the GOP has been peddling.  Dramatically reduce tax rates and reduce the deficit at the same time?   Maybe the details of the plan explain how "broadening the base" alone is sufficient to meet that goal.  I don't trust anything that won't provide actual hard numbers.  They might be in here when you dig deeper, so I'm not gonna come right out and say this plan is BS, but color me suspicious until I have a chance to go through it and see what they're actually proposing.

zlohban wrote: They want to LOWER the effective tax rates to 8%, 14%, 23% BUT eliminate tax credits like the earned income tax credit that is a form of welfare.  Simply everyone who earns income will pay at least 8%. this seems very fair. Make a buck give the feds 8 cents or 14 cents etc.. I will actually be paying more at the 14% without any credits or mortgage deductions but I won't complain if they broaden the base and tax everyone.

A side note, my college economics professor always said eliminate paper money and make everyone use coins. That would eliminate monies being transfered without taxes being paid. Imagine exchanging drug money with big metal dollars.