Balance the Budget.. I came up with a surplus in just 15 minutes

[bindelh]

Solved the budget

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=015k46qx

Try it yourself and send a copy of your link to all of your Congress Persons and a copy to Boehner.

This wasn't rocket science.. and I did not have to consider any amendments. Just the budget folks.

[CountAllVotes]

1. if they ended all of these crap wars

We'd be looking at surpluses for as far as the eye can see! Assholes!!

:dem:

[Keith Bee]

12. +1

[TheWraith]

2. A national sales tax?

Do you know how regressive a sales tax is? The poorer you are, the bigger a chunk of your income gets eaten by sales taxes. It's possibly one of the WORST ways to finance government.

Also, you checked an option which reduces veterans' healthcare and military pay.

[zbdent]

7. I always laugh when people propose the "national sales tax" (consumption tax) as

the latest "silver bullet" for "fairness" ...

Okay ... let's see ...

for it to be "fair", every product must be taxed. Would that include business to business transactions? (That would be the death of that, of course, the RWers would scream)

If so, let's start with a raw material which costs a dollar, and a penny for the tax on the transaction/"consumption".

Owner of "raw material" sells raw material to refiner - $1.01.

Refiner sells refined raw material to part manufacturer - $1.02.

Part manufacturer takes refined raw material and creates part, which is sold to engine manufacturer - $1.03.

Engine manufacturer factors in the $ for the part to the engine, sells engine to car manufacturer, adding, essentially, another penny ... - $1.04.

Car manufacturer tacks in the cost of the part in the engine to the engine placed into the car, "sells" car to auto dealer - $1.05.

Auto Dealer sells car to consumer ... - $1.06 for part.

So, I may have extended it a bit more than usual, but just think ... 6+ cents per dollar tacked onto a purchase that goes into the thousands of dollars ... which the consumer looks at the price tag and figures out, he can't afford it, and has to take the bus (and several transfers) ... which all the "transfers" have to pay that extra tax, too ...

dead in the water.

And that's not counting the "tax" on the product produced by the employees at each step of the way ...

[TheWraith]

9. It's the fastest and easiest way to shoot the economy in the head.

And guarantee that we import more and more finished goods from China.

Yes, Europe has a VAT. And it's still a terrible idea, one of the worst policies of European government. But moreover--how much do you hear about manufacturing done in Europe? When was the last time that you saw "Made in the United Kingdom" stamped on a mass manufactured item? Or anything really other than specialty luxury goods coming out of the EU?

The only mass-manufactured items that I know of which are exported from the EU in any serious quantity are both high-end goods: German cars and Belgian small arms, both of which bear a premium price tag. If we want manufacturing jobs available in this country, a national VAT is one of the things we most want to avoid.

[JackRiddler]

14. Your argument is wrong, although I agree with the conclusion that VAT is bad.

YOU:

"how much do you hear about manufacturing done in Europe? When was the last time that you saw "Made in the United Kingdom" stamped on a mass manufactured item? Or anything really other than specialty luxury goods coming out of the EU?"



Nonsense. The northern continental European countries are manufacturing powerhouses with extremely advanced R&D in key future sectors. They also feature higher standards of living, richer societies in terms of culture and institutions and better educational systems than the United States, by far. They are also more competitive on the world market while managing better energy efficiency and look at that, socialized medicine!

Hell with the UK, they're proud of their outsiderhood in relative poverty.

But when was the last time I saw "Made In Germany"? (VAT: 19 percent!) Could it have been the majority of the most expensive cars parked out on the street in front of my house? Could it be machine tools and industrial facilities the world round? Could we be talking about the nation with the highest trade surplus in the world? (Last year, China did surpass that measure in absolute terms -- with 20 times the population.)

VAT is unjust. That should suffice as an argument.

.

[TheWraith]

20. Actually, you're making my point talking about Germany.

They export hideously expensive luxury cars--high end products where the VAT manufacturing costs are easily absorbed. And yes, Europe does plenty of manufacturing, but little for export, other than expensive luxury goods.

[JackRiddler]

24. Wow, must you insist on pushing your clueless argument any further?

It's contrary to the facts, which have been told to you:

Figure it out, it's the luxury car market one would want to dominate (the top 20% of the market that makes half the profit). Didn't I just say machine tools, industrial facilities, not to mention construction of massive projects around the world... Germany is the number one manufacturing powerhouse per capita, period. With the largest trade surplus in the world as a result, for many years in a row until China went ahead last year (with 20x the population).

[bindelh]

8. Yes I did...

A national sales tax?

Do you know how regressive a sales tax is? The poorer you are, the bigger a chunk of your income gets eaten by sales taxes. It's possibly one of the WORST ways to finance government.

Also, you checked an option which reduces veterans' healthcare and military pay.

The National sales tax thing did not give an option to only install it for a couple of years, kinda like the Bush Tax cuts. Then again it could be taken out and still result in a surplus.. :)

Oh I also live in a state with a 'sales tax' and it isn't 'regressive'. No tax a on non prepared foods but that big screen TV and Ipad you gotta pay son.. ;)

"Reduces Veteran's healthcare and pay?? Not really.

Reduce noncombat military compensation and overhead:

Would change health-care plan for veterans who had not been wounded in battle.

Premiums, which have not risen in a decade, would rise.

More veterans would receive health insurance from employer.

This option would also take some benefits, like housing allowances, into account when tying military raises to civilian pay raises. Currently, increases in those benefits come on top of pay raises.

The military would also reduce the length and frequency of combat tours. No unit or person will be sent to a combat zone for longer than a year, and they will not be sent back involuntarily without spending at least two years at home.

Unfortunately this exercise did not include a Line item veto... :)

Understand that in reducing 'Military Overhead' I was thinking that Generals don't need to spend millions of our tax payer $s on a band bigger than some other General's and what happened to Army cooks and gate guards instead of private contractors? We do not need Blackwater in the AO or our messhalls.

[TheWraith]

10. Actually, now is a worse time to implement a national sales tax compared to later.

At a time when the economy is struggling back, adding new costs to all manufacturing and almost all personal spending is a fast way to slow it down.

And "veterans who haven't been wounded" are still veterans, and they've still worked for their healthcare. Moreover, a lot of "veterans who haven't been wounded" still have problems relating to their service. Many of those exposed to chemical weapons residue and the atmospheric fallout from burning oil wells during Operation Desert Storm weren't officially "wounded," but were still sick.

[blondeatlast]

16. +1, and he wants medical malpractice reform too. He would not get my vote. nt

[bindelh]

23. So removing both of those

still results in a surplus and the budget is solve through 2030.

Did you give it a try?

After all as you can see there are differences in opinion on how to solve the budget problem but one thing is for certain that it can be solved without cuts in domestic programs and foreign aid.

Eisenhower taxed the top incomes at 92% and these folks want to bring it down to 15% or less.

I did not notice any option for the cutting of subsidies to Oil Corps and other pollution causing industries.

There was no option to change the playing field for penalizing the big banks for not loaning monies to small businesses. (Windmill farm creation contracts have million's in work to be done backlogged but the banks will not lend the money so the companies have to keep laying off the skilled working force.)

If Congress would get down to the people's business instead of injecting social mores into the debate on the budget something could get done.

[n2doc]

15. Besides, do we really want people to stop spending?

Really? Just think of what that would do for the jobs market!

[louis-t]

3. I don't agree with a national sales tax.

It discourages consumption. That one thing, alone, would stifle any recovery.

[dana_b]

5. me wither - didn't choose that one. n/t

[dana_b]

4. love it!!

$500 billion surplus and the middle class and poor didn't have to give up ANYTHING!!

[AlabamaLibrul]

6. My plan

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=43x045qv

Skipped national sales tax, it is already 10% between city county and state. And yes, I would pay the military less, to discourage people from getting into it.

Obviously I would add some programs not seen there and would have to rebalance the budget too.

[TheWraith]

11. "I would pay the military less, to discourage people from getting into it."

The military already pretty much pays dirt for most servicemembers, and it's often an option of last resort for people who are from EXTREMELY poor families to be able to go and get a real education and improve their lives.

[Mnemosyne]

17. If many of them qualifying for food stamps doesn't show how bad the pay is

for the low guys on the totem pole, then I doubt much anything else would. Other than panhandling in Iraq while on duty. :hi:

[blondeatlast]

21. The pay is already crap--it's the opportunity for post-service education

that tends to attract them.

[SidDithers]

13. How many people did you put out of work?...nt

Sid

[blondeatlast]

18. A whole heckuvalot, I'm guessing--and they won't be paying

taxes, which kinda pisses in the rainbarrel.

[StarburstClock]

19. I would rather hit myself in the head with a hammer than send crap to a Boehner

Any 6th grader could easily solve "the budget", all the budget talk is propaganda.

[blondeatlast]

22. You won't be getting my vote, though. nt

[DireStrike]

25. Raise taxes, cut the military

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=43t205qm

I didn't cut any military pay, just unneeded programs, fleet sizes, and overseas presence.

Employer provided healthcare is a bad system that should be attacked, not encouraged.

Estate and investment taxes returned to Clinton levels. Bush tax cuts over 250k gone. Increase payroll tax cap, Millionaire's tax bracket, kill loopholes and keep taxes a bit higher. And tax the fucking banks.

[blondeatlast]

26. Employer-provided healthcare is a bad plan, but is taxing the benefits of hundreds of millions

of American workers (given the alternatives CURRENTLY available) a good idea? Do you really want to add that many people to the ranks of the uninsured?

The RRRepublicans love the idea; I don't, until there is a reasonable alternative available.