A Sensible Way to cut the Deficit

[intelligentjetsfan]

Repeal all of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax breaks for the top two percent. Repealing the 2001 and 2003 tax breaks for the top two percent would reduce the deficit by about $1 trillion over the next decade. After President Clinton increased taxes on the top two percent, the economy added over 22 million jobs. After President Bush reduced taxes for the rich, the economy lost over 600,000 private sector jobs.

Create an emergency deficit-reduction surtax on millionaires. Enacting a 5.4 percent surtax on adjusted gross income of more than $1 million would raise over $383 billion over 10 years, according to the Joint Tax Committee. According to a February 2011 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 81 percent of the American people support the creation of a millionaires surtax to reduce the deficit.

End tax breaks and subsidies for big oil, gas and coal companies. If we ended tax breaks and subsidies for big oil, gas, and coal companies, we could reduce the deficit by more than $113 billion over the next ten years. The five largest oil companies in the United States have earned about $1 trillion in profits over the past decade.

Establish a Wall Street speculation fee of 0.03 percent on the sale of credit default swaps, derivatives, stocks, options, and futures. Both the economic crisis and the deficit crisis are a direct result of the greed and recklessness on Wall Street. Establishing a speculation fee would reduce gambling on Wall Street, encourage the financial sector to invest in the productive economy, and reduce the deficit by $350 billion over 10 years without harming average Americans.

Eliminate tax breaks for companies shipping American jobs overseas. Today, the U.S. government is actually rewarding companies that move U.S. manufacturing jobs overseas through loopholes in the tax code known as deferral and foreign source income. During the last decade, the U.S. lost about 30% of its manufacturing jobs and over 56,000 factories have been shut down. If we eliminated these tax loopholes, the Joint Tax Committee has estimated that we could raise more than $582 billion in revenue over the next ten years.

Prohibit abusive and illegal offshore tax shelters. Each and every year, the United States loses an estimated $100 billion in tax revenues due to offshore tax abuses by the wealthy and large corporations. The situation has become so absurd that one five-story office building in the Cayman Islands is now the "home" to more than 18,000 corporations. The wealthy and large corporations should not be allowed to avoid paying taxes by setting up tax shelters in Panama, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, the Bahamas or other tax haven countries. Cracking down on offshore tax shelters could reduce the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next decade.

Establish a currency manipulation fee on China and other countries. As almost everyone knows, China is manipulating its currency, giving it an unfair trade advantage over the United States and destroying decent paying manufacturing jobs in the process. If we imposed a currency manipulation fee on China and other currency manipulators, the Economic Policy Institute has estimated that we could raise $500 billion over 10 years and create 1 million jobs in the process.

Tax capital gains and dividends the same as work. Taxing capital gains and dividends the same way that we tax work would raise more than $730 billion over the next decade. Warren Buffet has often said that he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. The reason for this is that the wealthy obtain most of their income from capital gains and dividends, which is taxed at a much lower rate than work. Right now, the top marginal income tax for working is 35%, but the tax rate on corporate dividends and capital gains is only 15%.

Establish a Progressive Estate Tax. If we established a progressive estate tax on inherited wealth of more than $3.5 million, we could raise more than $300 billion over 10 years. Sen. Sanders introduced the Responsible Estate Tax Act that would reduce the deficit in a fair way while ensuring that 99.7 percent of Americans who lose a loved one would never see a dime of their loved one's estate paid in federal estate taxes.

Reduce unnecessary and wasteful spending at the Pentagon, which now consumes over half of our discretionary budget. Much of the huge spending at the Pentagon is devoted to spending money on Cold War weapons programs to fight a Soviet Union that no longer exists. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Lawrence Korb, an Assistant Secretary of Defense under Ronald Reagan, have estimated that we could achieve significant savings of around $100 billion a year at the Pentagon while still ensuring that the United States has the strongest and most powerful military in the world.

Require Medicare to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices with the pharmaceutical industry. Requiring Medicare to negotiate drug prices, similarly to what the VA currently does, would save more than $157 billion over 10 years.

Eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse within every federal government agency. Virtually everyone agrees that there is waste, fraud, and abuse in every agency of the federal government. Rooting out this waste, fraud, and abuse could save between $150 billion and $200 billion over the next 10 years.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsro...a-f10d4bbc7edb

[Warfish]

Bernie Sander, European Socialist.

Unsuprisingly, almost every policy he lists is of a collectivist, take-from-rich, give-to-our-allies-and-friends-and-welfare redistribution-by-political-class-decree variety. I.e. Euro Social Welfareism.

Suffice to say, I disagree with most of his rather predictable ideas (and the few I agree with in principle, I don't believe for a second he or his party would ever actually do) as they are the same old same old.

So IJF, are you in agreement on the policies put forth by our Socialist friend Mr. Sanders?

[palmetto defender]

Didn't see much here about eliminating the Dept. of Education, HUD, HHS.

Locally, much could be saved by reducing teacher salaries based on non performance.

Continuing to reduce illegal immigrants problems (crime, usage of resourses, taking American jobs) would help.

Reducing unemplyment benefiits to 26-39 weeks (historic levels) would help.

Reducing government payrolls (headcount and salary) by 10% at all levels.

Reducing government pensions and benefits to be in line with the private sector.

Terminating full benefits for the USPS. Closing 15-20% of the post offices with 4 day delivery.

Drug tests for welfare recipients.

Reduction in the level of welfare and the SNAP program.

Elimination of school loan subsidies by the government.


The knife can AND SHOULD cut both ways.

[JetPotato]

What was another poster just saying about Vermont?

This isn't politics anymore. It's a virus.

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

Repeal all of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax breaks for the top two percent. Repealing the 2001 and 2003 tax breaks for the top two percent would reduce the deficit by about $1 trillion over the next decade. After President Clinton increased taxes on the top two percent, the economy added over 22 million jobs. After President Bush reduced taxes for the rich, the economy lost over 600,000 private sector jobs.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsro...a-f10d4bbc7edb

Interesting that tax revenues seem to have shot up right after the Bush tax cut was signed into law. Within two years we had already surpassed the pre-911/.com bursting revenue levels.

Only a complete bufoon would think that raising taxes increases jobs. The statement here is a bold faced lie and a manipulation of statistics.

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by chiefst2000

Interesting that tax revenues seem to have shot up right after the Bush tax cut was signed into law. Within two years we had already surpassed the pre-911/.com bursting revenue levels.

Only a complete bufoon would think that raising taxes increases jobs. The statement here is a bold faced lie and a manipulation of statistics.

Manipulation of statistics? How about showing a graph that tracks revenue as a percentage of GDP...

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_history

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

Didn't see much here about eliminating the Dept. of Education, HUD, HHS.

Locally, much could be saved by reducing teacher salaries based on non performance.

Continuing to reduce illegal immigrants problems (crime, usage of resourses, taking American jobs) would help.

Reducing unemplyment benefiits to 26-39 weeks (historic levels) would help.

Reducing government payrolls (headcount and salary) by 10% at all levels.

Reducing government pensions and benefits to be in line with the private sector.

Terminating full benefits for the USPS. Closing 15-20% of the post offices with 4 day delivery.

Drug tests for welfare recipients.

Reduction in the level of welfare and the SNAP program.

Elimination of school loan subsidies by the government.


The knife can AND SHOULD cut both ways.

If the knife can and should cut both ways, are you saying you'd agree to Bernie Sander's proposal if your proposal was also enacted?

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

Manipulation of statistics? How about showing a graph that tracks revenue as a percentage of GDP...

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_history

Thank you for proving the point. GDP expanded rapidly after the tax cuts as did revenue.

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

If the knife can and should cut both ways, are you saying you'd agree to Bernie Sander's proposal if your proposal was also enacted?

Oddly and barring the first point he made which was a complete fabrication I didn't have a problem with many of the points in Sanders article. I also agree with the majority of PD's post. These things have to cut both ways indeed. On top I would add:

Entitlement reform - Block Granting Medicaid to the states, Means testing SS and Medicare while simultaneously raising the ages a few years.

[quantum]

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

Eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse within every federal government agency. Virtually everyone agrees that there is waste, fraud, and abuse in every agency of the federal government. Rooting out this waste, fraud, and abuse could save between $150 billion and $200 billion over the next 10 years.

How naive and childlike. As someone so cursed that I work in govt, I can assure you that this will never happen. NEVER. EVER.

[southparkcpa]

Originally Posted by quantum

How naive and childlike. As someone so cursed that I work in govt, I can assure you that this will never happen. NEVER. EVER.

So pervasive is the problem..YOU SIR may be one of the only government people who even admit that their department is full of inefficient waste unemployable in most of the private sector where the free market crushes those who are inefficient are produce a below average product.

[quantum]

Originally Posted by southparkcpa

So pervasive is the problem..YOU SIR may be one of the only government people who even admit that their department is full of inefficient waste unemployable in most of the private sector where the free market crushes those who are inefficient are produce a below average product.

thankee. I can haz raise?

[OCCH]

It drives me nuts when people say "tax investments the same as income".

So you're gonna tax me when I MAKE the money, tax me again when I INVEST it, and tax me again when I DIE?

And yet somehow it's still not enough to meet the "needs" of our society . . .

[intelligentjetsfan]

Originally Posted by quantum

How naive and childlike. As someone so cursed that I work in govt, I can assure you that this will never happen. NEVER. EVER.

I agree with you; he did not need to add this.

[DDNYjets]

Forget about ever cutting the deficit significantly. That is a pipe dream. I will settle for stabilizing it. Can we at least try to break even?

I am in favor of a balanced budget amendment. That is also a pipe dream.

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by chiefst2000

Thank you for proving the point. GDP expanded rapidly after the tax cuts as did revenue.

Actually GDP dropped both times and caught back up to what it was before, only now, the government has added more debt because the gap in time from we cut revenue to when we gained back to where we were was all borrowed.

I agree with Romney's close loopholes and lower rates, but that doesn't address the deficit. We need to raise revenue, not just remain neutral in revenue. If you wanted Iraq and Afghanistan, you have to pay for them. Bush I paid for the first Persian Gulf war. Bush II lowered taxes and spent more in the long run, because he was there longer because he tried to do it with 1/3 of the amount of troops and install a democracy.

So for all of you that voted Republican for the last decade, if you're going to call yourself fiscally responsible, than pay more taxes now for the wars + lower tax rates you voted for then.

[intelligentjetsfan]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

Actually GDP dropped both times and caught back up to what it was before, only now, the government has added more debt because the gap in time from we cut revenue to when we gained back to where we were was all borrowed.

I agree with Romney's close loopholes and lower rates, but that doesn't address the deficit. We need to raise revenue, not just remain neutral in revenue. If you wanted Iraq and Afghanistan, you have to pay for them. Bush I paid for the first Persian Gulf war. Bush II lowered taxes and spent more in the long run, because he was there longer because he tried to do it with 1/3 of the amount of troops and install a democracy.

So for all of you that voted Republican for the last decade, if you're going to call yourself fiscally responsible, than pay more taxes now for the wars + lower tax rates you voted for then.

Its amazing how many voters fail to understand or even acknowledge this. In fact, I would argue that many voters on the right see this as some liberal talking point.

One of the great magic acts in politics was performed by the republicans, and their backers, when they mapped out a routine for winning back power during the weeks leading up to the election in 2008. They understood that it was going to be a democratic win in 2008 so they hatched a brilliant idea; lets call out the liberals for excessive spending before Obama even takes office. I will never forget watching Hannity during Obama's election parade blasting the president over how much money the parade cost. The talking points were handed down and already being inculcated.

Of course, the reality at the time was exactly as you described it in your last paragraph above. The idea that the public now swallows the bed time story that republicans, in many cases the same politicians that rubber stamped spending during the bush years, will now be fiscal conservatives speaks to the stupidity of the average voter.

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

Its amazing how many voters fail to understand or even acknowledge this. In fact, I would argue that many voters on the right see this as some liberal talking point.

One of the great magic acts in politics was performed by the republicans, and their backers, when they mapped out a routine for winning back power during the weeks leading up to the election in 2008. They understood that it was going to be a democratic win in 2008 so they hatched a brilliant idea; lets call out the liberals for excessive spending before Obama even takes office. I will never forget watching Hannity during Obama's election parade blasting the president over how much money the parade cost. The talking points were handed down and already being inculcated.

Of course, the reality at the time was exactly as you described it in your last paragraph above. The idea that the public now swallows the bed time story that republicans, in many cases the same politicians that rubber stamped spending during the bush years, will now be fiscal conservatives speaks to the stupidity of the average voter.

What's amazing is that liberals like yourself fail to recognize that we were attacked during the Bush administration and the dot com bubble that balanced the budget under Clinton had burst before Bush took office.

Bush like Obama faced a massive decline in revenue because of 2 things, a slowing economy and the need to defend the country. Bush and Obama under similar circumstances both made the argument for increased spending and tax cuts.

What Romney was getting at was simple. Creating jobs takes people off of government assistance and puts them in a position of paying taxes which adds revenue.

[OCCH]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

Actually GDP dropped both times and caught back up to what it was before, only now, the government has added more debt because the gap in time from we cut revenue to when we gained back to where we were was all borrowed.

I agree with Romney's close loopholes and lower rates, but that doesn't address the deficit. We need to raise revenue, not just remain neutral in revenue. If you wanted Iraq and Afghanistan, you have to pay for them. Bush I paid for the first Persian Gulf war. Bush II lowered taxes and spent more in the long run, because he was there longer because he tried to do it with 1/3 of the amount of troops and install a democracy.

So for all of you that voted Republican for the last decade, if you're going to call yourself fiscally responsible, than pay more taxes now for the wars + lower tax rates you voted for then.

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

Its amazing how many voters fail to understand or even acknowledge this. In fact, I would argue that many voters on the right see this as some liberal talking point.

One of the great magic acts in politics was performed by the republicans, and their backers, when they mapped out a routine for winning back power during the weeks leading up to the election in 2008. They understood that it was going to be a democratic win in 2008 so they hatched a brilliant idea; lets call out the liberals for excessive spending before Obama even takes office. I will never forget watching Hannity during Obama's election parade blasting the president over how much money the parade cost. The talking points were handed down and already being inculcated.

Of course, the reality at the time was exactly as you described it in your last paragraph above. The idea that the public now swallows the bed time story that republicans, in many cases the same politicians that rubber stamped spending during the bush years, will now be fiscal conservatives speaks to the stupidity of the average voter.

You guys are amazing.

Do you really think we vote Republican because we WANT to go to war? Because we WANT to spend money we don't have? Get your heads out of the ground, and you'll hear quite a few "conservatives" that aren't happy with how current Republicans go about business.

But talk about the pot calling the kettle black? People who voted for Obama WANT his health care system, WANTED the stimulus, WANT more money poured into education, entitlements, and other welfare programs . . . and want someone ELSE to step up and pay for it.

If every liberal put their money where their mouth was, there'd be no need to ask for more from those selfish, stupid conservatives . . .

[MnJetFan]

Companies ship their jobs overseas because of corporate taxes. The US taxes the companies again if they bring back profits from overseas. They are taxes twice once by the country they are operating in and the US if they bring any profits back here. BTW Obama got his ass kicked. No teleprompter to read from!