Article

2011-02-16 Economy

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2011-02-16 04:16|| || Front Page|| [3 views ] Top

#1 I did it. Why can't they?

Posted by gorb 2011-02-16 04:43|| 2011-02-16 04:43|| Front Page Top

#2 Actually, I did it and then some. And I didn't even get to the part where I put in a flat tax or eliminate the mortgage deduction entirely (gradually/grandfathered, of course).

Other than that, no tax increses.

Posted by gorb 2011-02-16 04:47|| 2011-02-16 04:47|| Front Page Top

#3 Piece of cake.

Last night on the radio, I heard a Dem lady say, her voice dripping with sarcasm, "You might as well say, 'Let them eat cake'."

I knew I was supposed to feel bad, but I pushed through it.

Posted by Bobby 2011-02-16 05:57|| 2011-02-16 05:57|| Front Page Top

#4 I dont drive a Ferrari. Served in the USMCorps. I have a nice backyard garden for vegetables ( which is a productive pleasure and I do canning.)
I change my own Oil, have a fireplace and 23 Oaks in the yard for firewood...collect fallen branches year round for the winter and buy a cord or two cheaply.
Pay my bills promptly. Own a couple of guns and hunt deer every year....get one every time. Have a cabin up in the hills for the Summer and Fall weekends. Nice Creek of fresh water.

Get money back on my taxes, plan ahead. And people call me "sir." I look both ways before crossing and I am usually bigger than you are.
I dont threaten people and I know the police in my town by their first names. I vote and I drop by the Party office for my candidate button and bumper sticker and yard sign every election.
I donate books at the National Guard Armory Library and attend the Police Academy graduations. And I donate 5,000 rounds of 9mm. at the Police gun range and have a membership there.
I do a cater tray at Christmas for the Security Staff at the County Courthouse. And the secretary in the window at the Police station is named Joyce.

This is my country and my community and I have no real debts. I worked for it and I care about people. But I can shoot you in the crotch if you illegally try and take it away from me.

Posted by Dribble2716 2011-02-16 06:37|| 2011-02-16 06:37|| Front Page Top

#5 Cutting the budget is easy. There are only four places to cut and have an impact, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Defence. The rest can be cut, but it won't make a big dent. Interesting graphic demonstrates this. Graphically.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2011-02-16 07:25|| 2011-02-16 07:25|| Front Page Top

#6 Piece 'O cake.
And I didn't even make severe cuts to entitlement spending.

Posted by DarthVader 2011-02-16 09:32|| 2011-02-16 09:32|| Front Page Top

#7 I did not see where education department and other non-estential GIvernment departments and programs could be cut.

Posted by airandee 2011-02-16 10:20|| 2011-02-16 10:20|| Front Page Top

#8 Many could disappear completely, and most of the rest could be cut back.

Don't even try to catch people before they intentionally break the law, hammer them when someone reports them. Over-regulating makes everyone a lawbreaker, then you just get to waltz in and pick and choose who you want to make donations to the government to make your agency look valuable.

Posted by gorb 2011-02-16 10:47|| 2011-02-16 10:47|| Front Page Top

#9 Strongly slanted toward President Obama's proposals and the Democratic idea that the changes should kick in just as the new president is taking the oath of office. The only way to make it work using the options is to cut the military significantly and/or raise taxes. Options such as shutting down the EPA or or rationalizing retirement schemes aren't anywhere to be seen.

Posted by trailing wife 2011-02-16 11:14|| 2011-02-16 11:14|| Front Page Top

#10 An amusing exercise, though. Thanks, GolfBravoUSMC.

Posted by trailing wife 2011-02-16 11:15|| 2011-02-16 11:15|| Front Page Top

#11 Deficit Spending, Not CO2 causes gerbil worming!

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2011-02-16 11:27|| 2011-02-16 11:27|| Front Page Top

#12 Nearly got the budget about balanced. With slightly more effort it would be balanced. That was fun but I'm not worried about getting re-elected.

Social security, medicare, medicaid needs to be reformed. First of all, the Ponzi Scheme nature of it has to be changed. There are many cuts that can be made in discretionary spending also. I don't buy that that is not where to look and that it's a drop in the bucket. Our government is far to bloated. These cuts would have a snowballing effect in the future. I don't know that all the possibilities for reductions are listed by the NYTs.

I think we have to get out from under our debt to China--pay off these guys and don't borrow from them in the future. Start making stuff in this country instead of relying on cheap shit that doesn't work from China.

If huge swaths are cut out of the Federal bureaucracies, it will increase unemployment in the short run. In the long run, this work can probably be better done competitively in the private sector.

Posted by JohnQC 2011-02-16 11:44|| 2011-02-16 11:44|| Front Page Top

#13 I got the deficit down to $80 billion in 2015, $37 billion in 2030. Did not even have to may any 'tough' decisions.

When you divide the resulting deficit by the GDP the new deficit becomes negligible (and may even disappear with higher growth rates).

Al

Posted by Frozen Al 2011-02-16 12:02|| 2011-02-16 12:02|| Front Page Top

#14 Where the option to eliminate the Education, Labor, EPA, and other alphabet-soup agencies.

Individually they don't mean much - but they do add up.

Or welfare (should be done by the states)

Posted by CrazyFool 2011-02-16 12:55|| 2011-02-16 12:55|| Front Page Top

#15 I completely balanced both the 2015 and 2030 budgets. Took me 3 minutes max. 84% via budget cuts and 16% via tax increases; the latter mostly the loopholes, etc.

And I did it only using the options the NYT gave me. I could get much more creative and focused if I had had additional options.

Criminy, if I can do this why can't our elected officials?

Posted by Steve White 2011-02-16 12:59|| 2011-02-16 12:59|| Front Page Top

#16 The thing is that tax rises on transfers will largely HARM the economy.

You need to move taxation away from working and employment (that includes spending) and onto things the government creates, these are land rights, patents and copyrights.

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2011-02-16 13:01|| 2011-02-16 13:01|| Front Page Top

#17 First, if you look at the budget, the "big three" are Medicaid and Medicare, Social Security and Defense. If you can reduce their costs, you don't have to fight over a thousand other things, and can tend to them at leisure.

The best of the three to approach is SS. The idea is to downgrade SS, which screwing as few people as possible.

Start by limiting those who will join SS in the future. The majority no longer have to pay the SS portion of their FICA, so a big tax cut to them. Then offer those who get SS benefits a deal--as an alternative to benefits, if they are still earning money, they can take a tax deduction *equivalent* to their benefits, plus some.

It would actually appear to be several times their benefits, because they only get a portion of their deductions in actual savings. This would slash the benefits being paid by SS.

Then, people who are still paying in to the system, can stop paying in, and take a double deduction by being able to deduct a second years' payments into the system as well.

Importantly, these cost savings would go into their private IRA.

At this point, the government would seemingly be losing a lot of revenue, but this is counteracted by giving all these tax benefits *instead* of renewing the Bush tax cuts.

So nobody is really screwed, though the government about breaks even at the start, SS is downgraded and the system becomes stable. So future budget savings are enormous.

Posted by Anonymoose 2011-02-16 13:23|| 2011-02-16 13:23|| Front Page Top

#18 "Criminy, if I can do this why can't our elected officials?"

Because you actually want to, Dr. Steve. :-(

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2011-02-16 13:28|| 2011-02-16 13:28|| Front Page Top

#19 84/16 Steve? Slacker - I got close to even with a 96/4 split, and didn't notice a lot of other choices (i.e. wipe out $$$ for UN, FCC, DoEd, Charitable deductions, DoT, DoEnergy, and on and on)

Surpluses Now, Tariffs Tomorrow!

Posted by Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division 2011-02-16 14:20|| 2011-02-16 14:20|| Front Page Top

#20 But.. but.. but moose - if you get people off Social Security how will they keep them on the DNC Plantation?

Posted by CrazyFool 2011-02-16 14:38|| 2011-02-16 14:38|| Front Page Top

#21 No one talks about the elephant in the room. Deficit spending now accounts for about 14% of GDP. Eliminate deficit spending, and GDP falls by about 14% just from that. Then the GDP may (or may not recover). That 14% drop in GDP = economic depression. Not to mention the spike in unemployment when government workers & those being paid in government cheese lose their jobs.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-02-16 15:35|| 2011-02-16 15:35|| Front Page Top

#22 If my social security had been diverted into IRAs, annuities, or solid bonds instead, I would most likely be far better off than now with social security. A further benefit would be that there would not be this huge chunk of money to tempt progressive congresscritters to get fancy with govmint accounting practices so they could spend money on their favorite projects.

I did not see any proposals to get rid of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, TVA and the myriad of other money sucking agencies. These could be privatized and be done better by private industry. With no Freddie, and Fannie, Barney Frank would lose influence and a place to put his special friends. He would not be able to pressure banks to make dip$hit loans that nobody in their right minds would make.

Posted by JohnQC 2011-02-16 16:57|| 2011-02-16 16:57|| Front Page Top

#23 Without government support of mortgage lending, the real estate industry would crash even lower than it has & there would be even more home-~~owners~~ loaners underwater. Higher mortgage interest/harder-to-get mortgages are tightly linked to lower house prices.
However, the housing bubble has to be dealt with at some point.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-02-16 17:07|| 2011-02-16 17:07|| Front Page Top

#24 I hope most on here can see that house prices moving ahead of wages is not a good thing (and is the sign of a credit bubble).

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2011-02-16 20:15|| 2011-02-16 20:15|| Front Page Top

#25 Eliminate Housing and Urban development (housing is cheap and in some cities where these programs were most in place; A complete failure!) - $38.5 Billion / year

Posted by airandee 2011-02-16 20:28|| 2011-02-16 20:28|| Front Page Top

23:56 JosephMendiola
23:54 JosephMendiola
23:51 USN,Ret
23:45 JosephMendiola
23:07 gorb
23:05 gorb
22:51 Anonymoose
22:39 GK
22:26 Water Modem
22:13 Thing From Snowy Mountain
22:09 rjschwarz
22:08 Frank G
22:08 Frank G
22:06 Thing From Snowy Mountain
22:02 Frank G
21:54 Frank G
21:51 Pappy
21:46 Fire and Ice
21:38 Pappy
20:41 SteveS
20:34 rammer
20:32 trailing wife
20:28 airandee
20:25 rammer