Come together on what we can all agree on

Individual:

Balanced on whose backs?

Who or what group is going to pay so that those books get balanced?

Is it okay if lives get sacrificed to balance books?

 

The problem is that Americans drive cars that are too big. $4 per gallon is not expensive. Europe has far higher prices than that.

Racist.

 

I'm an American and the only transportation I own is a 120cc motorcycle, but still the goods we buy and sell have to be brought to market, and higher fuel costs are simply added to the cost of the goods we buy.

What's racist about cutting foreign aid, especially if it is going to those who are unfriendly to us?

 

Individual:

You missed a few questions at the top of this page.

 

I didn't miss them, they weren't displayed when I last posted, and only now have they become visible.

 

1. The working taxpayers.

2. Same as above, all the working taxpayers.

3. Are lives being sacrificed to collect the revenues that are now being collected? Raise the taxes to 99% on those making over $X amount per year, and see how it works. Currently no one seems to care about spending borrowed money as no effort is made to repay it, so the attitude is "It's not my problem, give me more."

 

out:

I still feel the original method of the Federal government taxing the States, and allowing each State to determine how to acquire their share of the Federal tax bill is the best, and the one which would give the people a greater voice in limiting spending by the Federal government.

 

Really lame dude. The people on welfare in THIS country are of MANY different "races".

And I don't give a fuck what gas costs anywhere else. What I care about is the fucking oil corporations bilking THIS country for $100 billion in profits every three months. Your post is a lame defense of greed.

 

Really ask yourself "whose debt is this?" Who do we really owe this money to? I don't think most people have any real idea what this debt is, actually.

Mostly: People who own savings bonds, Large and small corporations, Banks/Insurance companies (who we bailed out and thereby increased our national debt - yes wtf.), Pension funds, Various U. S. government entities such as the Social Security Trust Fund, State and local government entities, and a small percentage of Foreign investors (13%). So aside from the 13% held by foreign investors, the government (which is really just you and me) owes this money to you and me - or itself, depending on how you look at it.

 

The Department of Treasury, U.S. gov, on December 17th, 2012 reported the following to be the foreign debt holdings current as of October 2012.

China, Mainland $1,161,500,000,000
Japan $1,134,700,000,000
Oil Exporters 3/ $266,200,000,000
Carib Bnkng Ctrs 4/ $258,500,000,000
Brazil $255,200,000,000
Taiwan $201,600,000,000
Switzerland $194,400,000,000
Russia $165,400,000,000
Luxembourg $139,400,000,000
Hong Kong $137,200,000,000
Belgium $133,300,000,000
United Kingdom 2/ $117,300,000,000
Singapore $94,300,000,000
Ireland $93,300,000,000
Norway $75,500,000,000
France $75,000,000,000
Canada $65,300,000,000
Germany $64,100,000,000
Mexico $59,200,000,000
India $58,900,000,000
Thailand $58,200,000,000
Turkey $51,600,000,000
Korea, South $41,600,000,000
Philippines $36,700,000,000
Chile $30,600,000,000
Poland $30,000,000,000
Colombia $29,300,000,000
Sweden $28,500,000,000
Netherlands $27,500,000,000
Italy $27,300,000,000
Australia $25,900,000,000
Spain $24,700,000,000
Israel $22,200,000,000
Malaysia $19,500,000,000
Denmark $14,500,000,000
Peru $13,100,000,000
South Africa $12,500,000,000
All Other $238,300,000,000
Grand Total $5,482,200,000,000

I'm quite curious to see what we might ALL agree on in relation to debt. From my point of view, debt is something that belongs to the one(s) who gain benefit from it and should be held liable for the repayment of it.

 

Since neoliberal economic policy of the last 30 years created the debt, debt is something that belongs to the one(s) who gain benefit from it and should be held liable for the repayment of it.

 

Try the past 100 years.

 

Look at a graph of US national debt and notice the acceleration starting with Reagan's neoliberalism.

 

I'm still trying to figure out how you're defining neoliberalism and a neoliberal economic system. How ever you define it, it has nothing to do with anything I have posted. Basically I see that we have a Federal government spending problem that needs to be resolved. The problem cannot be solved by increasing taxes alone, and spending is going to have to be reduced, which government never seems to get around to giving any attention. A large voting block would immediately revolt if their benefits were to be reduced.

 

FYI, Raygun is the darling of the GOP. He is THEIR messiah. It was his cold war spending on the military that almost tripled the national debt in his eight years. And he got elected with the campaign promise to balance the budget in his first four years. He never submitted one single balanced budget. Only LIBERAL Clinton balanced the budget, which Shrub Jr. destroyed in his first six months, and proceeded to double the national debt again from $5.5 trillion to almost $12 trillion, and and and destroyed the economy also. Your chit don't flush.

 

Me too!

 

Okay, here's a few solutions. Cut Politicians salaries in half, they're supposed to be "serving" not stealing us blind. With only an 18% approval rating, most think they're not doing their jobs.

Cut out all politicians retirement. Let them try to live on Social Security.

Cut out all politicians health care. Let them try to live without it.

Cut all subsidies to corporations. Hundreds of billion$ in profits should be enough.

Cut all foreign aid. Welfare for Americans first.

Tax all corporations the at the same rate as citizens that make over a million dollars a year. That in itself would eliminate the deficit.

Each spending bill should only have one item, no riders.

End special interest lobbying.

I just solved the problem without doing it on the backs of the elderly, the poor, or education. But the politicians don't REALLY want to do those things, do they. The fat cats just want to stay fat.

 

I can agree with most of your suggestions, and "Each spending bill should only have one item, no riders." has been something I've long complained needs to be done.
And you summed it up quite accurately, about all we can do is discuss the problem as the politicians seldom if ever listen to the large number of voters who allowed them to take office in the first place.

It appears to me that politicians are most answerable to those who fund their campaigns and the National political party they belong to, and NOT the constituents who put them in office as a result of their combined numbers, and may have little in common relative to individual issues with those who provided the majority of funding their campaign, or their political party association.

 

I agree.

I agree with that too.

But Reagan's "military spending" is also his economics.

Reaganomics:
A popular term used to refer to the economic policies of Ronald Reagan, the 40th U.S. President (1981–1989), which called for widespread tax cuts, decreased social spending, increased military spending, and the deregulation of domestic markets.

The term was used by supporters and detractors of Reagan's policies alike. Reaganomics was partially based on the principles of supply-side economics and the trickle-down theory. These theories hold the view that decreases in taxes , especially for corporations, is the best way to stimulate economic growth: the idea is that if the expenses of corporations are reduced, the savings will "trickle down" to the rest of the economy, spurring growth.

Prior to becoming Reagan's Vice President, George H. Bush coined the term "voodoo economics" as a proposed synonym for Reaganomics.

I'm not so sure about that one.

 

I think this is the first time I ever agreed with a complete post of yours.