Which candidates are actually talking about how to fix the deficit?

[Mavtek3100]

Originally posted by: Brovane
Well what are we going to cut then? The main bug budget items are defense and entitlements.

Also the big question is are the tax cuts of 01 going going to be made permanent because they expire in 2010? The budget projections assume that the tax cuts expire in 2010.

What are we going to cut? You just said it! Military and Entitlements I hope!

 

[QuantumPion]

Well Bush just made good progress by signing that executive order forbidding disbursing of funds for pork that has not been publicly debated on.

Apparently, the democrats in congress said they would eliminate pork, but all they really did was eliminate debating of pork. What they were doing was attaching pork to bills AFTER they had already been passed. This executive order should put a stop to that.

 

[Brovane]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: Brovane
Well what are we going to cut then? The main bug budget items are defense and entitlements.

Also the big question is are the tax cuts of 01 going going to be made permanent because they expire in 2010? The budget projections assume that the tax cuts expire in 2010.

What are we going to cut? You just said it! Military and Entitlements I hope!

Trying to cut entitlements and military is a non-starter in the political arena. Are you going to roll back the Bush Medi Care drug plan? Are you going to cut SS? Were are you going to cut in the military?

Also are you going to let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010? What about fixing the AMT?

 

[Mavtek3100]

Brovane I don't give a damn about the political arena I say we cut whether the bastards like it or not.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: Brovane
Well in order to eliminate the federal deficit is going to require tax increases and cutbacks(probably just reductions in the rate of increase). No politician wants to seriously discuss this because they will get hammered in the polls.

Why must we have tax increases? In 1999 the Federal Budget and tax collections came in around $1.8 trillion. Now we're at $3.2 trillion. Does the Government honestly need another $1.5 trillion more than they had 9 years ago?

Cut the hell out of spending is what I'd like.

That would be incorrect


_Total Federal Revenues (millions of $)_

2007 . . . . . 2,540,096
2006 . . . . . 2,407,254
2005 . . . . . 2,153,859
2004 . . . . . 1,880,279
2003 . . . . . 1,782,532
2002 . . . . . 1,853,395
2001 . . . . . 1,991,426

2000 . . . . . 2,025,457
1999 . . . . . 1,827,645
1998 . . . . . 1,721,955
1997 . . . . . 1,579,423
1996 . . . . . 1,453,177


GDP since 2000 has grown around 35% - Total Federal revenues substantially less ...
(btw - around 15% of the ""increase"" is due to individual income taxes. The overwhelming majority of the increase is due to social insurance taxes - which are primarily being used to fight the GWOT)

You say you want some more tax cuts ????

 

[SoundTheSurrender]

Well are we talking abour profits (after expenses) or or total collection?

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: rpanic
I can?t stand Hillary but the last time we had a balanced budget was with Bill, and this is really just going to be his third term.

Congress balanced the budget, not Bill. The 1997 Balanced Budget Act was back by the GOP and not the Dems. Yes Bill signed it but he didnt balance the budget.

I trust you are paid to be a Republican Propagandist ???

Let's look at the facts concerning the balancing of the federal budget under the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 which, of course, enacted PayGo rules in the Democratic Congress.

I'm sure you remember that the PayGo rules approved by the Democratic Congress required all increases in direct spending or revenue decreases to be offset by other spending decreases or revenue increases.

Now. Let's look at the % increases in the Federal Debt - pay particular attention to the period between 1990 and 1998.

Increase By Year - Federal Debt -Under PayGo Rules

2000 - - $17,907,308,253.43 - - 0.32%
1999 - - $130,077,892,735.81 - - 2.35%
1998 - - $113,046,997,500.28 - - 2.09%
1997 - - $188,335,072,261.61 - - 3.41%
1996 - - $250,828,038,426.34 - - 5.04%
1995 - - $281,232,990,696.07 - - 5.99%
1994 - - $281,261,026,873.94 - - 6.38%
1993 - - $346,868,227,617.72 - - 8.53%
1992 - - $399,317,303,824.63 - - 10.89%
1991 - - $431,989,899,919.78 - - 13.36%
1990 - - $375,882,491,589.93 - - 13.15%

Leave it to a Republican Propagandist to take credit for the democratic PayGo. Now let's see what happened after the Republican Congress let the PayGo rules expire after 2001 . . .

Increase By Year - Federal Debt -Without PayGo Rules

2007 - - $522,210,959,102.80 - - 6.14%
2006 - - $569,634,089,233.29 - - 7.18%
2005 - - $563,977,985,451.52 - - 7.64%
2004 - - $608,424,970,904.26 - - 8.97%
2003 - - $568,217,596,558.27 - - 9.12%
2002 - - $421,482,046,530.65 - - 7.25%
2001 - - $141,721,717,943.00 - - 2.50%

Any questions ???

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
Well are we talking abour profits (after expenses) or or total collection?

That would be total federal receipts ... If you look above this post you will see how far the budget is ""out of balance"".

We were this close ---> | | <--- in 2000 to having a balanced budget ....

 

[Brovane]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Brovane I don't give a damn about the political arena I say we cut whether the bastards like it or not.

I agree but then reality comes around and bites us in the A&%. Also those bastards vote and unfortunately Democracy sometimes winds up looking like mob rule.

First situation that has to be dealt with is the bush tax cuts of 01. Do we allow to expire? Because if we say yes then people are going to scream about a tax increase.

My solution to the situation would be simple.

#1 - Allow the Bush tax cuts to expire in 01.

#2- Remove SS and Medicare from the General Federal budget and allow them to stand on there own separately.

#3- Second hold the line on current spending over the next several years so as the tax receipts grow the federal budget will shrink.

#4 - look at ways to increase tax receipts by hammering people and businesses that use off shore countries as tax free havens. I want serious enforcement of the tax laws. Don't go after Grandma for $100 dollars I am talking going after the big
bucks with serious jail time for people and corporations that pull the off shore tax shanningans with billions. I want to see perp walks.

I am sick of tired of having to sell US treasuries to foreign countries. I was very excited in 2000 when the US Deficit was going away to only see the Bush administration roll in and start running up debt again.

 

[Mavtek3100]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: Brovane
Well in order to eliminate the federal deficit is going to require tax increases and cutbacks(probably just reductions in the rate of increase). No politician wants to seriously discuss this because they will get hammered in the polls.

Why must we have tax increases? In 1999 the Federal Budget and tax collections came in around $1.8 trillion. Now we're at $3.2 trillion. Does the Government honestly need another $1.5 trillion more than they had 9 years ago?

Cut the hell out of spending is what I'd like.

That would be incorrect


_Total Federal Revenues (millions of $)_

2007 . . . . . 2,540,096
2006 . . . . . 2,407,254
2005 . . . . . 2,153,859
2004 . . . . . 1,880,279
2003 . . . . . 1,782,532
2002 . . . . . 1,853,395
2001 . . . . . 1,991,426

2000 . . . . . 2,025,457
1999 . . . . . 1,827,645
1998 . . . . . 1,721,955
1997 . . . . . 1,579,423
1996 . . . . . 1,453,177


GDP since 2000 has grown around 35% - Total Federal revenues substantially less ...
(btw - around 15% of the ""increase"" is due to individual income taxes. The overwhelming majority of the increase is due to social insurance taxes - which are primarily being used to fight the GWOT)

You say you want some more tax cuts ????

I think you misunderstand me, we'll need $3.2million to balance the budget when we had a balanced budget in 1999 at 1.8.