Published: Wednesday, Sept. 7 2011 12:00 a.m. MDT
We have a serious spending problem which is fast becoming a serious debt problem
for our children and grandchildren. Stop the spending - now.
We as a society have spent the last seventy five years building up this deficit.
Both parties have contributed to our financial fiasco. To cut drastically
overnite would plunge us into a Depression that would rival the 1930's. Great
letter and correct. It will take a combination of cuts, tax raises and an
overall reprioritizing of our wants versus needs to fix the mess.
Texas is paying a price for excessive cutting of the government as there is now
a shortage of firefighters and equipment to fight the wildfires that are burning
in that state. People who dismiss the need for government are ignorant
In today's political climate, it seems like the "common sense"
approach is out of the question for the GOP base.EVERY GOP
presidential candidate professed to be against a plan that included $10 of
spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases.Seriously, if that plan
was put on the table, would you want your representative to vote "NO"?
Nice letter. The Tea Partiers keep saying that the government
should budget like a household. Fine. Say your hours were cut. You'd find a
way to cut expenses (drop Netflix, maybe even sell a car), but you wouldn't tell
your family to stop eating or using electricity. You'd be trying to find a
part-time job or some way to make more money. You'd be trying to find more
revenue. Why shouldn't the government do the same?The Tea Party may
whine about being called "terrorists", but what they want is economic
terrorism, point blank. If the shoe fits...
"I marvel that this truth is invisible to the tea party."You and me both!
Re: "The tea party believes . . . ."Parties don't believe,
people believe.Liberal demagogues ascribe any evil they care to rail
against to the Tea Party. The Tea Party is an easy target, of course, since it
has no official platform or even existence, except in the minds of people using
it as a prop for whatever they're selling.But, ultimately, it's a
scam.It is certainly true that most people in America believe that
there must be "massive reductions in federal spending [that] must be done
immediately . . . ." But it is not true that the same majority would hold
for not "eliminating tax loopholes or raising rates." [Note the
liberal code for raising taxes.]What most of us object to is the
mentality of raising taxes first, with no accompanying real reduction in the
cost of government.That's the rope-a-dope liberal vote-buying,
tax-and-spend politicians have played for years, and are still playing today.Here's an idea -- Cut first, then we can talk intelligently about any
needed tax increases.
Good letter.The debt has increased under Obama due to the stimulus, a
significant decrease in revenues, extending the Bush tax cuts and the war in
Afghanistan.Republicans for years have promoted the idea that tax
cuts create jobs. Bush had the worst job creation record of any modern Pres.
The extension of the Bush tax cuts has not produced more jobs either. Now the
Republicans are talking about deregulation (repeal Dodd-Frank) and more tax
cuts, such as lower capital gains tax rates. Basically, they've decided to
double-down on the Bush economic principles. We do need to put into place
longterm spending cuts. Drastically cutting spending now will increase, not
decrease, unemployment and further weaken the economy. Interest rates for
govt. borrowing are basically zero. So, we should be taking advantage of the
borrowing rate for a short-term jobs program, focused on upgrading our
infrastructure. Tax cuts to spur hiring have little to no effect when the
demand is low. Basically, however, Republicans are invested in
Obama failing, thereby the economy failing. Obama's ratings are low because he
as ceded the asylum to the inmates.
"We have a serious spending problem which is fast becoming a serious debt
problem for our children and grandchildren. Stop the spending - now."But cuts won't necessarily improve the deficit!Think this
through!You lay off a bunch of federal/state workers. Firefighters,
police officers, teachers, and other workers.... The private sector is unable to
absorb these people are provide them with salaries.These people
then, don't buy products, stop paying taxes (because they don't have a salary),
and then lose their homes. That debt and lack of income generation
(from buying products), slows down the economy even more and brings up more
government shortfalls.Folks, it's not that difficult to
understand!We need more wealth overturning more quickly. Instead,
it's being all hoarded by those on the very top.
The GOP and their Wall Street millionaires who helped cause this global
financial-crisis. Nouriel Roubini, co-founder/chairman of Roubini Global
Economics LLC, said the current slowdown in the world economy has brought
forward the timing of a new financial crisis. Three years after the collapse
of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., financial shares in Europe are under assault
and the cost of insuring bank debt is at records as the global recovery falters
and the euro-region crisis weighs on the economy. There's a 60 percent
probability that most advanced economies will fall into a recession, while
authorities are running out of options to provide emergency support, said
Roubini, also a professor at New York Universitys Stern School of Business. You
need to restore economic growth, not five years from now, you need to restore it
today, Roubini said. In the short term, we need to do massive stimulus,
otherwise there's going to be another Great Depression. Things are getting worse
and the big difference between now and a few years ago is that this time around
were running out of policy bullets. The economist said another financial crisis
"is already manifesting itself" in developed economies.
Re: "Think this through!Good advice -- let's do a little
thinking, here.Every nickel paid to government workers comes out of
our pockets. Every nickel not paid represents a cut from our monstrous,
unsustainable deficit.Additionally, some 40% of government workers
are at, or within 5 years of retirement eligibility. For most of them,
retirement means a small, tax-supported pension, supplemented by contributions
to and earnings of a 401K-like Thrift Savings Plan. Since matching
contributions to the Plan are sunk costs -- already paid -- the continuing cost
to taxpayers of a retired government employee is a tiny fraction of the cost of
paying him full-time wages.Any small effect [outside the Beltway] on
the productive economy of cutting jobs from the parasitic sector, will be more
than offset by the stimulus provided by a lower deficit.So, let's
put on our thinking caps -- large cuts in the cost of government can be
painlessly attained by encouraging retirement-age bureaucrats to retire, maybe
even offer incentives for early retirement.So, why not do so?Government employee unions, maybe?
Ok, I accept that too much cutting too soon could give us more of a recession.
But as it is now, I don't see any cutting. Let's get some of that. That would
help restore confidence that the government is able to do something. As it is
now, I've heard a lot but so far I haven't seen anything.
Here is the ironic thing about the liberals. They complain about the
"fatcat" millionaries that have destroyed the country, but then elect
them into political office with the idea that they will punish the
millionaires.Obama is worth $5.5 MillionThe Clintons are worth
$34.9 MillionHarry Reid has $3.4 MillionNancy Pelosi has $35.2
MillionJane Harman has $293.4 MillionJohn Kerry has $238.8
MillionMaxine Waters has $2.2 MillionThe fact that in 2010
there were 261 millionaires in Congress.With nearly 50% of Congress
being Millionares you expect any legislation to pass that would punish the
millionaires, or even create more oversight and control over their
activities?To "KJB1 | 6:58 a.m." one thing that is often
not included in the household budget analogy is the fact that the government is
on a fixed income and is incapable of getting a second job. The US averages
just under 20% GDP in taxes, regardless of the tax rates. So, raising tax rates
won't fix anything, it only shifts where the money comes from.The
best thing to do is to get more people working.
I agree 100% with the letter writer.What I bothers me the most about
the whole thing, and politics in general, is the way everyone seems to need to
kowtow to the Tea Party. This party is, in reality, a small minority of all
voters in the US, and yet all candidates are changing their ideas, etc. to get
Tea Party support. That's a very scary scenerio in my opinion.
To procuradorfiscal: It is certainly true that most people in America believe
that there must be "massive reductions in federal spending [that] must be
done immediately"--Look at any poll and you will find that this statement
is untrue.Americans support spending cuts in general, but when it
comes to cutting any specific programs, they are opposed to all cuts except
foreign aid (under 1% of the budget). Support for cutting Medicare or Social
Security is in the single digits. Virtually all polls show that Americans would
rather pay higher taxes than see cuts to those two programs.
"With nearly 50% of Congress being Millionares you expect any legislation
to pass that would punish the millionaires, or even create more oversight and
control over their activities?"Didn't we have over 50 Democrats
in the senate who wanted to get rid of the bush tax cuts on those making over
250k? Then the GOP filibustered it of course... and held unemployment benefit
extensions hostage to use as a bargaining chip for it...
Why would anyone believe someone should have to pay more than 35% of any
percentage of their income to the Federal Government. It is wasted on foreign
wars with no result, extravangant spending programs at home with no real
purpose, and keeps the country from addressing its need for structural reform in
the tax system and social programs. Fix the programs, lower taxes, and then
watch the country prosper again.
To Hellooo: You can rest easy. The 400 wealthiest American families, with
average incomes over 100 million dollars a year, only pay 16.6% of their income
in federal taxes.
Re: "Look at any poll and you will find that this statement [Americans
favor immediate spending cuts] is untrue."Not sure which polls
you're looking at, but a recent CBS News poll found "77 percent prefer to
cut spending, 9 percent want to raise taxes and another 9 percent want to do
both."So, 86% of Americans want spending cuts. There may be
less agreement as to particulars, but a clear and vast majority agree there must
be cuts.Yet, liberals block any serious proposals to cut spending.
Recent "compromises" don't cut a nickel -- they don't even seriously
address spending growth.Many dramatic cuts, starting with the number
of agencies and bureaucrats, would be relatively painless [see discussion above]
and could reduce the deficit a lot [executive branch payroll is $177B a year,
physical plant/vehicle/support expenses, another $161B], yet liberals/trade
unions oppose them, bleating about some crying need to raise taxes, instead.Here's an idea -- let's try some cuts first. Assess the effect. Then
we can intelligently discuss any need for more taxes.
"Texas is paying a price for excessive cutting of the government as there
is now a shortage of firefighters and equipment to fight the wildfires that are
burning in that state."Evidence?I'd be happy to be
corrected, but my immediate reaction to this kind of claim is that, like most
liberal "facts," it is obtained by alimentary extraction. You've made a factual claim: Because of budget cuts, Texas now has fewer
firefighters and less equipment than it had previously. Is this true? Do you
have numbers to back it up?As for taxation: Raising taxes on
"the rich" won't put more than a scratch in the paint of the budget
deficit. Looks to me like that would net us about $80 billion, against a $1.5
trillion hole. (And that's assuming tax hikes wouldn't increase tax avoidance,
which they always do, leading the higher rates to return less than the expected
revenue). You'd have to pretty much double *everybody's* income
taxes, to get deficits back to Bush-era levels. Got an extra thousand bucks a
month lying around? Me neither.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments