Pelosi et al are shameless

[Rukentuts]

I'm not creating an echo chamber with those that agree with me. I'm creating a fiction-free zone.

Is that why people that disagree with you are linking sources and you are not?

No, you're creating a zone where you can see what you want to see.

[Somewowguy]

[QUOTE=Endus;20181899]Self-censoring the conversation to create what appears to be an echo chamber that agrees with you is . . . weird.

No, its psychotic. I stand by free speech in America %100. But this isnt America, its an internet forum. This entire thread is misleading. He doesnt want to discuss anything. He's either laughing at us, because he's trolled all of us thinking that this was a discussion, or he's furiously masturbating to what he himself wrote. Either way, and this isnt an insult, there is something very wrong with the OP. Honestly after reading his posts, I would strongly suggest a therapist visit.

Close this nonsense. All he's doing is picking his opponents in an imaginary war.

[cutterx2202]

Let me ask this more explicitly since it doesn't seem to be getting through. I'll use big bold letters:

Where would you cut spending so that we can start paying off our debt?

[Wildtree]

Let me ask this more explicitly since it doesn't seem to be getting through. I'll use big bold letters:

Where would you cut spending so that we can start paying off our debt?

Military by 50%..... after that we can fine tune.

[Luuth]

The annual salary of each Senator and Representative as of 2006, was $165,200

Make these guys live like the rest of us. They should not receive their full salaries after they retire. They should either serve term limits, or be required to work a certain amount of years to draw a retirement. They should be required to pay into a retirement plan like everyone else (401k). They should not be allowed to approve their own pay increases. They should not be allowed to run the country into the ground and then cash out. These guys can basically do whatever they want (which seems to be nothing most of the time) and then retire comfortably. F that!

[Somewowguy]

Let me ask this more explicitly since it doesn't seem to be getting through. I'll use big bold letters:

Where would you cut spending so that we can start paying off our debt?

Its too late. Your own ignorance, threats to ignore people, and insults hammered the nails shut on your thread's coffin. Then in an attempt to salvage and prolong your ego boosting, you simultaneously insult us and post a brand new topic of "discussion". Ive been reading this post since you made it, mostly to see the extent of your dementia. Peace out girl scout.

[Endus]

Let me ask this more explicitly since it doesn't seem to be getting through. I'll use big bold letters:

Where would you cut spending so that we can start paying off our debt?

Military spending by a massive chunk. 50-80%. Even 80% would leave the US with hands-down the highest spending on military in the world.

Complete cancellation of any and all subsidies for corporations. Subsidies for family farms and the like can remain, but not megacorp farms.

Apply tariffs to imports from overseas, making it cheaper to just manufacture in the US in the first place (either provides greater revenue via tariffs, or employment for Americans).

Increase revenue by hiking taxes progressively, boosting capital gains taxes to be equivalent to income taxes rather than significantly lower, increasing corporate taxes, reducing loopholes and exceptions that allow people to reduce taxable income, possibly by putting income caps on some of them, meaning you can't claim them if you make over a certain six-figure amount of income.

[Wildtree]

Military spending by a massive chunk. 50-80%. Even 80% would leave the US with hands-down the highest spending on military in the world

Man you are radical.. lol
I wouldn't dare to ask for 80%... Although you are correct, the masses wouldn't know and believe it.
The right wing would go postal. Even 50% would translate into elimination of foreign military actions.
The crux is, how hard it is to educate the population that cease of military actions abroad would lead to more peace and safety for the country as a whole.
The people are rather programmed into the belief of only through strong military presence and interference across the planet the country can ensure it's safety and freedom.

[Kasierith]

I'm not creating an echo chamber with those that agree with me. I'm creating a fiction-free zone. If some people can't even agree on what reality is, then they're not worth arguing with. Again, the arguments should be on WHAT to cut, not WHETHER there needs to be cuts.

Ok, so for clarification.... is it the people that as a group don't think that spending cuts should be the sole method of reducing the deficit that are apparently ignorant of reality? Also, if you don't want to entertain an open discussion, an open forum probably isn't the best way to go.

[Wildtree]

The annual salary of each Senator and Representative as of 2006, was $165,200

Make these guys live like the rest of us. They should not receive their full salaries after they retire. They should either serve term limits, or be required to work a certain amount of years to draw a retirement. They should be required to pay into a retirement plan like everyone else (401k). They should not be allowed to approve their own pay increases. They should not be allowed to run the country into the ground and then cash out. These guys can basically do whatever they want (which seems to be nothing most of the time) and then retire comfortably. F that!

A rather primitive simple approach... Pay them by achievement.
Every time they do something they get paid. No law passing, no income...
That's primitive and subject to extreme misuse, but the tendency is what I like. No work result, no pay..

[Kasierith]

A rather primitive simple approach... Pay them by achievement.
Every time they do something they get paid. No law passing, no income...
That's primitive and subject to extreme misuse, but the tendency is what I like. No work result, no pay..

That's pretty much the entire basis for why the war on drugs is still rolling; if you don't have something to do, do something that makes you look very busy so you get reelected. Basing wages on progress would only exacerbate the problem.

[Kujako]

A rather primitive simple approach... Pay them by achievement.
Every time they do something they get paid. No law passing, no income...
That's primitive and subject to extreme misuse, but the tendency is what I like. No work result, no pay..

How about we just dont pay them? The intent of public office was that people (well, white male land owners) would put their life on hold and dedicate themselves to the public good for a limited amount of time. The concept of a carrier politician is against the intent of the system. People now get into politics for the money, that seems like a bad idea to me.

[cutterx2202]

M

Being a veteran, I know 80% could not happen and still maintain our capabilities. With that said, though, If we're not actively at war with someone, our forces should be at home or cruising the high seas. Actions like Libya are far outside of what we should be doing and interfering with. I'm more of the "sleeping giant" mindset where we maintain our strength and don't press anyone not threatening us - it's not our place to get involved in civil wars or uprisings. Just maintaining what our current capabilities are, but not fighting every rebels' war for them, and staying home would save a LOT of money. We can start there - I think we agree on (staying home)?

[tombstoner139]

Let me ask this more explicitly since it doesn't seem to be getting through. I'll use big bold letters:

Where would you cut spending so that we can start paying off our debt?

First if you cut spending you will make the situation worse by increasing unemployment and lowering incoming tax revenue... but you know that all ready i hope.

whats needed is a spending freeze and let inflation take over and deprecated the debt over time. unfortunately it cant work because of social security.
That single program is whats forcing the debt ceiling higher and higher. it needs to be decoupled with the general fund. once hats done abolish the federal reserve.. its not even part of the federal government, its owned by an international banking cartel. please see fed reserve web sight for proof.... they are very open about it. in fact during a freedom of information act request they clearly stated they are a privet entity and not subject to the freedom of information act like the government is.
no federal reserve means no more making up cash when we want too.

[Wildtree]

How about we just dont pay them? The intent of public office was that people (well, white male land owners) would put their life on hold and dedicate themselves to the public good for a limited amount of time. The concept of a carrier politician is against the intent of the system. People now get into politics for the money, that seems like a bad idea to me.

The idea is fine... But I'm afraid it would end in only obviously rich people getting into congress.
There needs to be some kind of pay to make sure that the "little common man" can send people into office.
But what they make now is way out of line.

[Kujako]

The idea is fine... But I'm afraid it would end in only obviously rich people getting into congress.

So no change?

[Dillon]

9 times out of 10, people who use "socialism" as a bad word have no idea what it actually means.

There's two ways to use it;
1> To describe a government that provides social support policies for those in need. By this definition, basically every first world nation on the planet has been "socialist" for decades, to varying degrees. The only way to make the US "not socialist" would be to cancel ALL medical support you can't pay for out of pocket (no Medicare/Medicaid, no emergency care unless you have insurance, etc), no welfare/food stamps/etc (if you can't afford food/shelter, be homeless and starve to death), no money for public education at all, etcetera. ALL of those are "socialist" policies.

I don't think social welfare is a very good idea without price controls. Guaranteeing certain amounts of money to a market is a recipe for higher prices, every time.

Military spending by a massive chunk. 50-80%. Even 80% would leave the US with hands-down the highest spending on military in the world.

Complete cancellation of any and all subsidies for corporations. Subsidies for family farms and the like can remain, but not megacorp farms.

Apply tariffs to imports from overseas, making it cheaper to just manufacture in the US in the first place (either provides greater revenue via tariffs, or employment for Americans).

Increase revenue by hiking taxes progressively, boosting capital gains taxes to be equivalent to income taxes rather than significantly lower, increasing corporate taxes, reducing loopholes and exceptions that allow people to reduce taxable income, possibly by putting income caps on some of them, meaning you can't claim them if you make over a certain six-figure amount of income.

This is almost identical to what I've wanted for years now.

[Endus]

I don't think social welfare is a very good idea without price controls. Guaranteeing certain amounts of money to a market is a recipe for higher prices, every time.

That depends on a lot of other factors you're neglecting.

Case in point; Canadian health care is pretty comparable to US health care, but we pay somewhat less per capita in taxes to support it. And almost nothing in private funds, unlike the US, where private money almost matches taxpayer funding. The US' profit-oriented system is the one clearly creating higher prices in that case.

[Dillon]

That depends on a lot of other factors you're neglecting.

Case in point; Canadian health care is pretty comparable to US health care, but we pay somewhat less per capita in taxes to support it. And almost nothing in private funds, unlike the US, where private money almost matches taxpayer funding. The US' profit-oriented system is the one clearly creating higher prices in that case.

I acknowledge there are other factors, the subject is anything but simple.

The US economy is weird because we claim it to be capitalism when it's nothing of the sort, so when we do something like subsidized housing or healthcare, if it doesn't have price controls the market will capitalize anyway. Guaranteeing money to a market will raise prices, unless something keeps that from happening.

[The Riddler]

Military spending by a massive chunk. 50-80%. Even 80% would leave the US with hands-down the highest spending on military in the world.

I'd say a 33% cut in the US Military would be sufficient. I favor the elimination of all European military bases. Let the EU fund its own defense. Also, cut all money that goes to the UN as well. Let them fund and maintain their own forces and facilities.

Complete cancellation of any and all subsidies for corporations. Subsidies for family farms and the like can remain, but not megacorp farms.

I agree - as long as cancelling subsidies includes any and ALL of the so-called "Green" energy companies. Solar, wind, tide, electric cars... Not a dime for any of them. If they can't survive in the market on their own then they are not ready for the big time.

Apply tariffs to imports from overseas, making it cheaper to just manufacture in the US in the first place (either provides greater revenue via tariffs, or employment for Americans).

A selective application, sure. But this must be reinforced by the elimination of the government unions. That includes the Teachers, SEIU, and every other unionized federal/public organization. It does no good to slap tariffs on cheap foreign labor when you artificially inflate the cost of local labor. The reason it is cheaper to go overseas is only partly because of the lack of tariffs. The other problem is the inflated cost of local work due to sky-high labor, and soul-crushing regulatory restrictions.

Increase revenue by hiking taxes progressively, boosting capital gains taxes to be equivalent to income taxes rather

Capital gains should be increased no higher than 22% to 25%. Making it equal to the income tax removes the incentive to invest, which in the current economy is a critically important function.

increasing corporate taxes

No. They're already like the 2nd highest in the world. Raising them is completely unnecessary.

reducing loopholes and exceptions

Yes to this - because this is what makes increasing the corporate tax rate is unnecessary. Simply close all the loopholes and change the system to a "flat" tax where everyone pays an unalterable percentage in taxes. No tricks. No offshore accounts. No smooshing money around to escape. Just a plain, simple, fair tax where everyone pays.

At the same time - also remove ALL the loopholes & tricks that Congress, lobbyists, and lawmakers use to make themselves rich off of insider information. And pass a law that if ANY politician so much as invests one thin PENNY based on their insider information they go to jail. Forever. Immediately. And every cent they have is confiscated and given to the poor, and they are banned from all participation in any government job for all time - and their family too -and they can't take a job in media either, or be a lobbyist, write a book, take money from another politician, or be allowed within 10 miles of any government official or facility.

But of course the best step to take is to immediately cut 33% from all social spending as well. 33% off the TOTAL budget - not the rate of growth. Then pass a law freezing it there until they pass a Balanced Budget ammendment.