|
DesideriScuri -> RE: No worries about the shutdown (10/3/2013 5:57:26 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: mnottertail
I forgot the vast innumeracy. go learn economics. look, if you make a million, or you make 20 cents, and you spend a billion, you have debt and interest. if you get a raise, due to democratic principles (which is why we have better revenues) and you make another 30 cents, but it still doesnt cover your monthly nut or even your interest. . . .
Who said: "doesnt matter how much the revenue is, since it has nothing to do with the borrowing and spending?"
If revenues have nothing to do with the spending or the borrowing, then what's the point of raising any revenue?
I have no issues with math. We are bff's. It strikes me that revenues actually do have an impact on borrowing. The difference between spending and revenues would be that part borrowed, no?
The D's don't want to cut spending to reduce the debt. The R's don't want to raise taxes (in an effort to raise revenues) to reduce the debt. The debt clock keeps spinning because we keep spending.
You almost have it correct here. The Republicans will not raise taxes but instead demand budget cuts. That part is correct. The Democrats are willing to make budget cuts if that also includes increasing taxes. The difference of revenue to spending can be applied to the US Debt and thus lower it over time. That would be the wise thing to do, right?
The game that was being played by Democrats "budget cuts" was that they were counting things that were already going to drop. Ending the wars counted for Billions, as if they weren't going to end if they didn't get tax hikes.
If both sides can agree to what spending can be cut, why the fuck hasn't it been cut?!? This is exactly what pisses me off about politics. Both sides can agree on something, but won't pass it unless they get something, too.
Paul Ryan's budget was revenue neutral. That is, it was able to lower the overall tax rate without changing revenues. It did this by cutting loopholes. Personally, I'd much rather see loopholes be cut and overall tax rates drop. And, "if I were King," I'd phase in those rate drops while making the loophole closures immediate apply to the next tax year. To make sure I was clear on that: if it's passed in 2013, the loopholes would still be open for 2013 income, but would not be available for 2014 income. Take a 5-year approach to the tax rate drops. In those 5 years, the strategy would be revenue positive, and our tax code would simplify a great deal. It would also give us 5 years to get our spending house in order, to get down to revenue levels.
Something else in the Paul Ryan budget: Current year spending was capped at the previous year's revenues. As revenues rise, we'll have a surplus for the current year, and will be able to increase spending for the next.
That's a conservative (not the political meaning) approach, no doubt, but shouldn't it be that way?
|
|
|
|
