How would you balance the budget?

Truth Detector said:
The REAL solutions to a Federal Government that has outgrown it's constitutional limitations and spends trillions of taxpayer money it doesn't have:

(1) Eliminate the entire abomination called the Federal Tax Code. It is nothing more than a political document that empowers the people we send to Congress. Supplant it with the FAIR consumption TAX.
(2) Significantly reduce the massive Internal Revenue Service. They would probably only need a third of the staff once the FAIR TAX is implemented.
(3) Term limits on the House and the Senate. SIX terms for the House, and TWO terms for the Senate. Once served, they can no longer be a Congress person.
(4) Abolish the following departments because they are not in the Constitutional purview of the Federal Government: Agriculture - it's a State issue; Labor - it's a State issue; Health and Human Services - it's a State issue; Housing and Urban Development - it's a State issue; Education - it's a State issue.

This is the ONLY way you will get our Federal house in order. Anything less is mere window dressing that will do NOTHING to reduce the power of the checkbook. As long as we have self-serving professional politicians in Congress with the power of the purse to buy votes, you will have a severe spending problem.
Click to expand...

NOFUCKINGONE agrees with that mouthpooping you ass bag
 
evince said:
Laffer himself says 50% tax on corporations gives you the MOST revenue
Click to expand...

LINK you raving lunatic.

P.S. Corporations do not pay taxes. The consumers of their products and services pay them. If you had a brain, you would know this.
 
Last edited:
evince said:
if you had any integrity you would have praised Clinton instead of hating him for outing your false concern
Click to expand...

The trouble with a "balanced" budget is, you have about a 15 minute window to brag about it and then you are either in a surplus or a deficit status, again. And the surplus situation never lasts as long as the deficit.
And don't forget the tech bubble!
 
Callinectes Ocasio-Cortez said:
The trouble with a "balanced" budget is, you have about a 15 minute window to brag about it and then you are either in a surplus or a deficit status, again. And the surplus situation never lasts as long as the deficit.
Click to expand...

Well, it does last until you cut taxes...the Bush Tax Cuts erased the surpluses we had during Clinton.






And don't forget the tech bubble!
Click to expand...

Caused by the Capital Gains Tax Cut.

Also, the tech bubble burst led to a brief recession in 2001 that didn't even turn GDP negative for that year. In 2001, even with a recession and 9/11, GDP still grew by about 1.9%.

So there's no excuse for the erasing of surpluses, and subsequent explosion of deficits and debt, except for stupid, Conservative tax cutting policies.
 
Oneuli said:
Alienation should always be a consideration. But, when it comes to most rich people, who rely on a large and relatively difficult-to-move workforce, it's less of a consideration, than when it comes to movie productions, which have small, ad-hoc workforces (recruited for several months for each new project), and so can pretty easily be moved from country to country to take advantage of tax considerations.
Click to expand...

AND...…………………; because liberals whine when any kind of other business moves, due to taxes??
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
AND...…………………; because liberals whine when any kind of other business moves, due to taxes??
Click to expand...

With most types of businesses, there are practical steps nations can take to try to avoid that. Specifically, richer countries should get together an agree not to compete to poach companies from one another. That at least will reduce the incentive businesses that need a large, educated workforce have to move. But with movie productions, they're so portable, that doesn't work well. You don't need a large, educated local workforce to make a movie. You can fly a small workforce almost anywhere in the world, set them up in temporary facilities, and fly them home in a few months when it's done. That makes it hard to tax movie productions a lot without them forum shopping.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
That question smells like "So, Mr. Smith, did you stop beating your wife, yes or no?"

A healthy economy has a mix of both, to get the budget under control. Our fat bloated military could stand some drastic cuts. So could our corporate welfare programs.... let's close those loopholes. Medicare fraud isn't as rampant as it once was -- or maybe the fraudsters have gotten sneakier. Lots more loopholes and crackdowns to be done there. Financing higher education needs a good going-over. I'm sure you can add more to the list.
Click to expand...

It's OK to admit that you despise Republican politicians. After all I despise all Democrat politicians. So it's not a loaded question at all.

I agree that the military should be leaner and meaner. Meaner, meaning that we shouldn't go around nation building. And I like Trump's proposal of Cost plus 50.

Too much money is spent on old folks in their last few months of life. Lots of families torture grandma with feeding/ breathing/ pissing/ shitting tubes, all very expensive items. Morbidly obese patients getting knee replacements. If the patients or their families were footing the bills for all that most would make more sensible decisions.

I hear the "corporate welfare" mantra often; not sure what it means. I've heard that companies like Amazon paid zero tax last year, and I kinda doubt that. If we had a flat tax, opposed by the spenders, it would solve a lot of problems and lots of tax attorneys and bean counters would be jobless (and that's OK with me).
 
Oneuli said:
Note, we overspend on "security" so much that we could cut $300 billion from the military budget and still more than double the budget of the next-closest nation. Just how much should we prioritize it.

As for prioritizing based on what's in the Constitution, it's worth remembering that right there in the Preamble one of the key goals is spelled out as promoting the general welfare.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the "general welfare clause" is completely bullshit. Madison anticipated your argument and mocked those dumb enough to believe in such a bogus notion:

Federalist 41:

It has been urged and echoed, that the power ``to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.
Then he goes on, to the point of mocking those who attempt to bastardize plain language to suit their agenda of unlimited power.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms ``to raise money for the general welfare. ''But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are ``their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. '' The terms of article eighth are still more identical: ``All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury,'' etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!
Click to expand...
 
just eliminate all taxes on the wealthy and corporations and the money will flow into the treasury. We will get tired of counting it.
 
Oneuli said:
With most types of businesses, there are practical steps nations can take to try to avoid that. Specifically, richer countries should get together an agree not to compete to poach companies from one another. That at least will reduce the incentive businesses that need a large, educated workforce have to move. But with movie productions, they're so portable, that doesn't work well. You don't need a large, educated local workforce to make a movie. You can fly a small workforce almost anywhere in the world, set them up in temporary facilities, and fly them home in a few months when it's done. That makes it hard to tax movie productions a lot without them forum shopping.
Click to expand...

Specifically, richer countries should get together an agree not to compete to poach movies and actors from one another.
 
Dark Soul said:
Yeah, the "general welfare clause" is completely bullshit. Madison anticipated your argument and mocked those dumb enough to believe in such a bogus notion:

Federalist 41:
Click to expand...

Fortunately, Madison was just one of many founders, and his personal feelings on the matter don't trump what's actually in the document.... and, when it came to this particular matter, his feelings on the matter didn't end up mattering at all, since, as a simple historical matter of fact, we've had a government that has been using un-enumerated powers to promote the general welfare pretty much from the dawn of the Republic.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Specifically, richer countries should get together an agree not to compete to poach movies and actors from one another.
Click to expand...

That would be great. However, movie since movie productions don't rely on large, stable skilled workforces, non-rich countries can poach those productions easily enough.
 
Nordberg said:
just eliminate all taxes on the wealthy and corporations and the money will flow into the treasury. We will get tired of counting it.
Click to expand...

Absurdity; a sure sign of the last desperate refuge for liars, fools and ignorance; and those who have lost their arguments. Yay you! :clap:
 
Oneuli said:
Fortunately, Madison was just one of many founders, and his personal feelings on the matter don't trump what's actually in the document.... and, when it came to this particular matter, his feelings on the matter didn't end up mattering at all, since, as a simple historical matter of fact, we've had a government that has been using un-enumerated powers to promote the general welfare pretty much from the dawn of the Republic.
Click to expand...

What a laughable pile of word salad nonsense. :laugh:
 
Dark Soul said:
Yeah, the "general welfare clause" is completely bullshit. Madison anticipated your argument and mocked those dumb enough to believe in such a bogus notion:
Click to expand...

General Welfare has to be the dumbest, weakest argument the liberal left has ever come up with. The notion that it is the Governments job to ensure we feed, clothe and insure ourselves and get paid a living wage, whatever that means, is beyond merely absurd.

BUT, what these claims do support is a massive, intrusive Government that liberals would love to control and therefore dictate like Fascists what is best for all of us.
 
LV426 said:
Well, it does last until you cut taxes...the Bush Tax Cuts erased the surpluses we had during Clinton.








Caused by the Capital Gains Tax Cut.

Also, the tech bubble burst led to a brief recession in 2001 that didn't even turn GDP negative for that year. In 2001, even with a recession and 9/11, GDP still grew by about 1.9%.

So there's no excuse for the erasing of surpluses, and subsequent explosion of deficits and debt, except for stupid, Conservative tax cutting policies.
Click to expand...

Makes no difference if you have "surpluses" OR deficits. If you have either, you don't have a balanced budget. Being the anti-(excessive)taxation fanatic that I am, I would prefer we operate under a small, MANAGEABLE deficit, because if politicians of either party see a surplus, it's like a wounded bleeding seal to a great white shark. Pretty soon all you have left is government backed stock car racing programs for paraplegic transvestites. And yeah, on the other side, you're gonna get a tank with restrooms for all 3 genders, but at least it's a tank. The only way to address this is through history. Those swamp idiots have to google the history of taxation in this country and get back to it. The original reason for taxation was war. That's it. We have to start slowly weaning the populace off these entitlements until we are self-sufficient again. You want a social safety net? Fine. Keep it and make it much less. Maybe someday when my bones are dust and we travel across the galaxy at the speed of light for a vacation, that whole mess will be paid off
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top