"Imagine if voters could apply CAFE standards to government . . . " (by Scott Burgess/Detroit News)

General Discussion
41

My quibble with the way expendatures are cut is with WHAT expendatures are cut. The federal budget is chock full of handouts to other countries, some not even friendly to us, for things like “clean air initiatives”. Hillery Clinton just committed $200 billion annually in contributions to third world countries for clean air initiatives. As if third world countries had clean air intiatives high on their agendas.

In 2010 we sent more that $300 billion to the UN
The US susbsidizes ethanol producers to the tune of $317 billion
the US pays over $241 billion annually in foreign aid
The U.S. Department of Agriculture distributes between $10 billion and $30 billion in cash subsidies to farmers and owners of farmland each year.

The USDA operates a range of programs to aid farmers and food companies in their foreign sales. The Market Access Program hands out $200 million annually to producers in support of activities such as advertising campaigns. Recipients include the Distilled Spirits Council, the Pet Food Institute, the Association of Brewers, the Popcorn Board, the Wine Institute, and Welch’s Food.17 Another program, the Foreign Market Development program, hands out $35 million annually to groups such as the American Peanut Council, the Cotton Council International, and the Mohair Council of America.

Most American industries fund their own research and development programs. The agriculture industry is a notable exception. The USDA spends about $3 billion annually on agricultural research, statistical information services, and economic studies

USDA conservation programs dispense about $3 billion annually to the nation’s farmers. The largest conservation subsidy program is the Conservation Reserve Program, which was created in 1985 to idle millions of acres of farmland. Under CRP, farmers are paid not to grow crops, but to cultivate ground cover such as grass or trees on retired acres.

Oil companies are subsidized to the tune of $70.2 billion annually.

I could go on forever, but I think you get the idea. These will not be cut. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will be cut.

Postscript: I did not mean to single out farmers. I have only respect for them. And if they can get money from the feds they’d be fools not to take it.

It was simply that the agricultural subsidy information for agribusinessess was the most readily available on .gov websites, so I started there.

42

–John Dickinson in the movie “1776”

I’m impressed. I was wondering if someone would recognize that.

In 2010 we sent more that $300 billion to the UN
The US susbsidizes ethanol producers to the tune of $317 billion
the US pays over $241 billion annually in foreign aid
The U.S. Department of Agriculture distributes between $10 billion and $30 billion in cash subsidies to farmers and owners of farmland each year. (etcetc)

Everything you mentioned should be cut. Some of them entirely.

But you’re right. They’ll cut assistance to the poor and Social Security (which doesn’t even have anything to do with the deficit) rather than to people like oil barons or farmers who generally clear more after taxes than most people make pre-tax.

43

Yup. It disgusts me when I hear them say the problem is too few tax revenues.

44

$70,000,000,000.00 Here, $300,000,000,000.00 There . . . Pretty Soon You’re Talking Real Money !
Funny How Little Bits Add Up !
At the risk of sounding redundant, let me repeat. The government has no revenue problem, but rather an addiction to spending other people’s money.
CSA

45

Yeah, OURS!!!

46

CSA, when Congress passed the Bush tax cuts, it was the first time in American history taxes were cut during a time of war (actually, TWO wars!).

Were you for or against the Bush tax cuts?

Were you for or against the invasion of Iraq?

Were you for or against the war in Afghanistan?

If the answers are “yes,” “yes,” and “yes,” (or “yes,” “no,” and “yes”) how do you justify the morality of assuming those costs without paying for them?

In my humble opinion, it’s downright patriotic to pay taxes, and even accept a tax increase, to pay for the expenses associated with having our troops fighting overseas, and it’s downright unpatriotic to be unwilling to raise taxes to pay for those expenses now. No amount of budget cutting can make up for the hundreds of billions of dollars that those wars have cost us as a country.

Republicans preach fiscal responsibility now, but it was a Republican-led Congress and a Republican President that gave us two simultaneous wars and a tax cut at the same time. If they had done something about unresponsible spending when it first started, we wouldn’t have as much of a deficit problem as we have now.

It’s amazing to me how when Republicans have control, they can justify spending money and passing the bill to future generations and administrations, but when they lose the Whitehouse to a Democrat, they finally find the fortitude to be responsible. It’s okay for THEM to spend like drunken sailors, but when a Democrat gets in there, they find their “fiscal conservative” voice. If only conservatives had real values that governed their actions while they were in power.

Imagine what our deficit would look like if conservatives had shirked their patriotic tax-paying duties during WWII! There’s a reason we call them “the greatest generation,” and isn’t because they hated paying taxes.

47

Yup. It disgusts me when I hear them say the problem is too few tax revenues.

Can’t agree more…It disgusts me also…

What also disgusts me is when the talking heads say the problem things like Medicare…The working stiff living from paycheck to paycheck would be far more sympathetic to Tax cuts that effect him if we’d get rid of that waste MB pointed out.

48

I Am Not Opposed To The Spending Of My Tax Dollars On Defense Or Military Needs (Including Spending On The Civilian NASA Program That Was Recently Cut Back). It’s The Other Wasteful Spending I Don’t Accept. (See TSM’s Small List Of Examples).

Again, our government will now accept additional tax contributions from citizens. Folks can put their money where their mouth is and mail it in. Those who think taxes are too low will be happy to send their money to Washington. Those who think taxes are plenty high or too high can keep their’s.

I happen to one of the 50% who contributes plenty of tax revenue to the cause, cuts or no cuts (I’ve had some tax increases this year). Rather than have the 50% who don’t contribute much or nothing at all, vote to increase my tax obligation, they should be required to pay into the system. As the Vice President has pointed out, everybody should have some skin in the game. Our entire tax system has run amok.

We’ve got too many free-loaders and the way this works has the whole country (including the government) split down the middle. Also, when it’s one’s own money being squandered, people are more likely to want the government to be more frugal and conservative.

Don’t be misled, tax cuts are not a way of gifting money to individuals or corporations who pay taxes. It’s their money and tax cuts are just a way of confiscating less of it and letting them keep more of what they legally earned and are entitled to having. The more I keep, the more I spend on goods and services and that’s what makes the whole country work and prosper. The uncertainty of what this current administration (and I’m not talking political parties) has done, is doing, or will do next, has me and millions of other Americans and Corporations, small businesses, hospitals, etcetra, holding back.

CSA

49

“Both sides seem to take the opposite view of the other party”. One of the problems is they seem to take the opposite view but actually don’t. Both parties in fact support large, intrusive, and costly government – they squabble over the details of which programs to fund. You’ll notice while blaming the “other” party for large government, neither party even talked about serious spending cuts until a month ago – they talked about cutting “the other parties pork” or the like, while supporing increased spending on their own pork. And in fact, as it is now they ended up increasing the debt ceiling and just saying they’ll cut spending eventually, same as before.

 Honestly, it's past time for some libertarians in office.  Some of them say they want to scrap gov't entirely, rather than just reducing it's scope, size, and expense.  I figure no worries, checks and balances (and the necessity to compromise to ever get anything passed) will make them compromise towards just cutting the fat.  But they WOULD cut the fat, unlike the Dems who will complain about Republican fat while passing their own, and the Reps who will complain about Deomocratic pork while merrily passing their own.  

 This is how things work in a lot of countries, there's like 4 or 5 main parties, some actually have pretty extreme views but it means there's probably a party that actually closely represents your views.  Probably 1 or 2 parties are bigger, and there's perhaps more minor (few percent of the vote) parties waiting in the wings for if one of those 4 or 5 screw up.  They must form temporary coalitions and compromise to get anything done (ordinarily no party has >=50% of the votes).  It also means there's a real threat -- if parties mess up as badly as the Dems and Reps, there are actually other parties to choose from.  Under this system, it's unlikely the Dems and Reps would have gridlocked as they did, first off with 3 or 4 other parties there isn't a single "other party" to lay the blame on; secondly, they'd have to know that the remaining parties could hammer out some agreement (and perhaps pass it, if not on their own, then with votes from some dissenting Dems and Reps).

 As for the CAFE analogy... well I don't know I got as far as him claiming the H1 is a beautiful vehicle and stopped, I can't take someone seriously that thinks that.  But.. anyway, 1) The 50-something MPG CAFE standard is probably going too far.  I like cars that get that MPG, but people should be able to buy sports cars and such if they want.  2) Just saying (for a business or anything) a blanket statement to "increase efficiency x%" (which of course means "cut costs x%" -- is almost always trouble).  (Of course in some cases, increasing budget a bit would pay off in increased return on investment.)  We had trouble with this when I worked at University Surplus -- when budget cuts hit, all departments were cut a flat x%.  Well, our department was ALREADY scavenging surplus paper, surplus printers, surplus pens, used toners, used computers, wiring our building with used ethernet cables and used switches, and used desks and chairs.  They've moved now, but the old building was quite shabby and there was already no money for building maintenance.  The only cut they could make was to lay off staff and then run short-staffed.  I'm sure it's like that in gov't too -- some parts are probably quite posh and have loads to cut, some are probably completely unnecessary, while others are already cut to the bone.
50

"Both parties in fact support large, intrusive, and costly government – they squabble over the details of which programs to fund."
That Is Correct.

How refreshing it would be to see more non-career politicians (we got a few in the last elections) to go to Washington and be more willing to Cover Our country’s “best interests” instead of playing “CYA”. The few we’ve got helped steer much of this budget debate and bring more awareness of the problem. Bringing home the pork is the soup du jour for 99% of our congress members. Their number one job is keeping their job.

CSA

51

The blame game on the part of many still goes down. Blame the poor for being freeloaders when the bottom 40% has less than 1% of the nations wealth. The top 10% have well more than half the wealth and holds 80% of the secure investment vehicle(bonds, stocks etc.) which leaves the middle class with less than a third of the wealth paying the majority of the burden and having responsibility of providing for their own health care while living from one week to another and asked to support the corporations by “buying American” while loosing their jobs abroad.

A multitude of falsehoods. Among them that we the middle class should be saving more. Please; show me safe saving vehicles that keeps up with the cost of living. While the wealthy actually negotiate their interest rates, the middle class losses value when they try to save. Let’s blame the poor for the housing crises when artificial low rates made it cheaper to buy then rent. Pity the poor banks whom supposedly were scammed by all of those lying borrowers I guess.

And the biggest joke. Increasing the personal income tax rates on the wealthy, hurts jobs. Any small business owner who files a personal income tax form ( responsible for 80% of the nations employment) pays no income tax on any gross profit they make from their business that is reinvested in pay wages, Heath insurance, utilities, capital improvements and anything that supports the business. If anything, increasing tax rates on small business owners, of which just a small % would be effected regardless, incentivized them to hire more and pay better benefits as a way of avoiding taxes.

Avoiding paying taxes by the wealthy who are affected by any increase, is one of their privies as well as being able to take advantages of much higher savings and investment rates. So, let’s ask the poor to pay more. More of what? They have such a small % of the nations wealth, it doesn’t make a dent.

Another big lie is told by those conservative thinkers who have a history of raising the debt and still preach their solutions work. The old trickle down theory of the past is just a way of peeing on the middle class.

Lets make it profitable for small business to hire workers by providing single payer non profit healthcare plans and taking the responsibility out of the hands of employers. Make sure the healthcare of our citizenry is no longer a bartered commodity that enhances the wealth of insurance companies and stifles employment by driving it overseas to countries that do the smart thing instead of the expedient thing.

52

Again, our government will now accept additional tax contributions from citizens. Folks can put their money where their mouth is and mail it in. Those who think taxes are too low will be happy to send their money to Washington. Those who think taxes are plenty high or too high can keep their’s.

Sorry, but that’s pretty lame. Even if 10,000 people sent in an extra $2000, that’s only 20,000,000. That’s chump change. The trouble with your suggestion is that the people most able to contribute, don’t, and in fact fight tooth and nail to get lower taxes for their tax bracket.

The solution is a more sane tax policy. While we agree that there are subsidies that can and should be cut, again that’s not going to pay for our obligations. Higher taxes on the wealthy will - and by the way, it will also generate the economic boost that the Republicans claim is generated by lowering taxes. Why? Because it encourages reinvestment in business.

Let’s say you own a few McDonalds. You’re clearing 3 million a year, and pocketing most of it because taxes are absurdly low. But what if individual income tax went up significantly after the first 1.5 million? Historically it was 90%. (Keep in mind, that’s 90% of income above 1.5 mil - below that is a much lower tax rate, so you’re still rich). Now you have a choice to make: Do you still pocket all of your profits, and then pay 90% taxes on the extra 1.5 million, leaving you only with an extra $150,000, or do you sink that extra 1.5 million back into the business where it won’t be taxed nearly as highly, and open another restaurant?

The choice is pretty obvious, and the result of your choice is that you create jobs (sound familiar?) and drive the economy.

Under the current plan, you have a choice to make too. Do you pocket almost all of that extra 1.5 million, or do you buy a new restaurant with it. Now the choice isn’t so obvious, because that extra 1.5 million will significantly improve your lifestyle. And as we’ve seen for the past 30 years, most of the “job generators that need lower taxes” are taking their tax savings and buying luxuries with it, not reinvesting in business, and not creating jobs.

Want to create jobs and jump start the economy? Raise income taxes on people who are in a position to avoid paying that extra tax money by sinking it into expanding their business.

53

Another big lie is told by those conservative thinkers who have a history of raising the debt and still preach their solutions work. The old trickle down theory of the past is just a way of peeing on the middle class.

We have 30 years of seeing how trickle down theory works…IT DOESN’T (at least not for anyone but the super rich). The rich got richer at a much faster rate then any other group…and at a faster rate then any other time in our nations history. And it’s amazing how people of meager means are suckered into believing that it’s actually good for THEM…

54

I like the analogy some use of "Families dont spend beyond their means, neither should the gov’t.!"
Are you kidding me?? How many credit cards are issued each year, and how many families carry a balance from month to month on them??

55

Who’s to blame? That’s easy, there are 435 members in the house, 100 members in the senate, one president, and nine Supreme Court judges. According to the constitution those 545 people hold 100% of the power of the federal government; they carry all the responsibility and get ALL the blame. They can try and pass off their responsibility to other people, say to the Federal Reserve, congress delegated its Constitutional duty to the Federal Reserve, but they can take it back at anytime. And although Congress can delegate congress is still responsible. So anything concerning the Federal Government, good, bad or otherwise can be tied back to those 545 people.

56

A friend sent me this:

        The Fix
        There recently was an article in the St. Petersburg , Fl. Times. The                      Business Section asked readers for ideas on: "How Would You Fix the Economy?" I think this guy nailed it!

        Dear Mr. President,

        Please find below my suggestion for fixing America 's economy. Instead of giving billions of dollars to companies that will squander the money on lavish parties and unearned bonuses, use the following plan.

You can call it the “Patriotic Retirement Plan”:

There are about 40 million people over 50 in the work force. Pay them $1 million apiece severance for early retirement with the following stipulations:

        1) They MUST retire. Forty million job openings - Unemployment fixed.

        2) They MUST buy a new AMERICAN Car. Forty million cars ordered - Auto Industry fixed.

        3) They MUST either buy a house or pay off their mortgage - Housing Crisis fixed.

        It can't get any easier than that!!
        P.S. If more money is needed, have all members in Congress pay their taxes..
        Mr. President, while you're at it, make Congress retire on Social Security and Medicare. I'll bet both programs would be fixed pronto!
57

Mr. President, while you’re at it, make Congress retire on Social Security and Medicare. I’ll bet both programs would be fixed pronto!

Amen…

58

“The Fix
There recently was an article in the St. Petersburg , Fl. Times. The Business Section asked readers for ideas on: “How Would You Fix the Economy?” I think this guy nailed it!”

That would work for me, especially if I don’t get taxed on that cool million. Does my wife also get a million bucks if she retires? I’d be glad to pay off my house, buy a new CTS-V for me, and a Chevrolet Volt for my wife. I’m there, baby. So, it ain’t gonna happen. It’s fun to dream, though.

59

The only problem with that idea is that it could cost us $40 TRILLION (four times our current national debt). Oh, and the original e-mail didn’t contain a post script. Someone added that to the e-mail after it started circulating.

60

The 40 billion would only be $1000 each…Sorry but I can’t retire on that.