Spending cuts vs. Tax increase - Page 3 - TigerDroppings.com

Posted byMessage
Catman88
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Dec 2004
39350 posts

re: Spending cuts vs. Tax increase


All over 20 years.. Thats the BS that has to stop! meaningless proposals on cuts and then spead the BS over 20 years when you know you will just change the game again during that time frame. No cuts ever occur, taxes go up and so does spending.







Back to top
junkfunky
LSU Fan
Member since Jan 2011
13427 posts

re: Spending cuts vs. Tax increase


quote:

he agreed to squeeze $250 billion from Medicare in the next 10 years, with $800 billion more in the decade after that.


Politicians are retarded. They should be cutting more sooner than later because inflation is gonna happen and then they'll have to come back and revoke this shite.






Back to top
Wolfhound45
LSU Fan
Member since Nov 2009
14491 posts

re: Spending cuts vs. Tax increase


quote:

squeeze $250 billion from Medicare in the next 10 years


That is the laughable part (though he controls nothing beyond the next four years - that is not the point).

We are going to "cut" spending by $25 billion per year when we are running a $1.6 trillion deficit annually.



And they VOTED for him because he had a plan!

Bailing water out of the Titanic with a teaspoon.



Props to our President. He knows how to GOTV.






Back to top
FightinTigersDammit
Northwestern St. Fan
Farmerville LA
Member since Mar 2006
6088 posts

re: Spending cuts vs. Tax increase


How about we incentivise each government office and department to save taxpayer money? Right now, its a 'use it or lose it' system whereby, if an office or department doesn't spend all their budget, they are cut the next year. That's no damn way to save money.





Back to top
Ace Midnight
LSU Fan
Ball, LA - Home, Sweet Home
Member since Dec 2006
29107 posts

re: Spending cuts vs. Tax increase


quote:

How about we incentivise each government office and department to save taxpayer money? Right now, its a 'use it or lose it' system whereby, if an office or department doesn't spend all their budget, they are cut the next year. That's no damn way to save money.


They have been offering bonuses/rewards to people who suggest ways to save money. However, you're correct that there's no incentive to save money - if they just let the unspent money carry over to a reserve fund the next year, that would probably show departments that frugality won't be punished - the problem is Congress, the various OIGs, auditors, GSA and OMB - they all want to see everything zeroed out at the end of the day on September 30th - and to a certain degree they're right - loose money lying around is just an invitation for funny business. However, a department that spends $23,456 less than their budget will see their budget go down about $23k the next year. That doesn't seem very smart. Those guys should be in charge of more money and more departments when they do that and rewarded accordingly.






Back to top
redandright
Member since Jun 2011
2773 posts

re: Spending cuts vs. Tax increase


quote:

Yeah but this mentality ultimately will get us nowhere other than jumping off this cliff. Both sides have to find the issues in which they are willing to cave on. Both sides can not have their cake and eat it too.


The Democrats have always lied when it comes to spending cuts. They lied to Reagan, and they lied to GHW Bush.

That's why the GOP doesn't trust them.

As far as the glory years of Clinton, the budget wasn't balanced until the GOP won the House in 94. Clinton saw the writing on the wall and tacked to the left, because he wanted to win re-election.

He also profited from the Tech bubble which burst just as he was leaving office.






Back to top
doubleb
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2006
6047 posts

re: Spending cuts vs. Tax increase


quote:

As far as the glory years of Clinton, the budget wasn't balanced until the GOP won the House in 94. Clinton saw the writing on the wall and tacked to the left, because he wanted to win re-election.


I only brought up Clinton because Obama used Clinton and his term to paint himself as a centrist.

Clinton was fortunate that Reagan had lowered tax rates and that the Republicans under Newt brought spending down.

As a percent of GDP the feds spent 19.4% while Clinton was POTUS. The govt. under Obama is spending over 24% of GDP.
THAT IS ALMOST 20 PERCENT MORE!!!!

Cut spending is job 1, looking at raising taxes is job 2; but let me reiterate what a wise man once said not too long ago; "you don't raise taxes in a recession". So I guess now that the recession is over you can go full speed ahead and sock it too 'em.







Back to top
FightinTigersDammit
Northwestern St. Fan
Farmerville LA
Member since Mar 2006
6088 posts

re: Spending cuts vs. Tax increase


You can't tax your way to prosperity, either...





Back to top
tiger 56
LSU Fan
Severn, MD
Member since Dec 2003
591 posts

re: Spending cuts vs. Tax increase


1. As mentioned,eliminate the automatic increase in the budget
2. For one year, freeze the DoD budget except military pay.
3. Increase the retirement age by 6 weeks every year. (I started to cap this at 40 years but in four decades the average life expectancy may be 100).
4. REPEAL OBAMACARE!!!
5. Close dept of Energy, Education,and EPA.
6. Medicare and Medicaid ???
7. Everything else that is a federal expenditure, reduce 5% from last year
8. PASS A BUDGET.






Back to top
boxcar willie
LSU Fan
kenner
Member since Mar 2011
4296 posts

re: Spending cuts vs. Tax increase


quote:

think we need to go all the way back to the greatest time in history. Let's go back to the tax brackets which worked so well under Bill Clinton. I think we should also cap spending at the Clinton levels too.


I would think that republicans would be pushing for this. It would greatly expand the tax base and get the 47% some skin in the game.






Back to top


Back to top




//