1. First and foremost you reduce Federal Spending of GDP from current levels of 25% to the historical norm of 20%. The 20% to 25% increase happened over the past 3 years. I would do it over 5 years so as not to shock the system. Govt spending is still spending, albeit always misguided.
2. Capture lost revenue - The IRS doesn't realize close to $400B in lost revenue as it result of an underground economy (and no I'm not just talking about Mexicans. It's anybody who works with cash), and our arcane tax system. A flat tax still focuses on an employer based W2 system to ensure collection. We do have to move to a sales tax based system that captures lost revenue. Progressives - before you foam at the mouth and have seizures, we can still work out a system where somebody making less than X pays nothing in federal taxes. As a result we remove all tax credits and tax deductions. That should keep marikod off the property tax kick for awhile, so he can focus on drones and Roman Polansky.
3. Immigration and Education - I really love our hispanic brothers and sisters, and I know that they provide valuable labor which keeps certain costs in check, bu our educational system sucks. Maybe there is a correlation. Just today Obama is giving waivers to 10 states to delay the "No Child Left Behind". We seriously enforce the border, and focus immigration towards those with a minimum of an undergraduate degree. Degrees must be in science, tech, math or engineering. As a result, they will get jobs as there are over 3M jobs avbl today that require specific skills, competencies and education. They will pay a lot in taxes, and they will buy homes, which no doubt helps the housing problem vs the govt throwing another $25B at the problem.
4. Growth policies - There are a number of ways to encourage growth, and I don't want to belabor them here, but at a minimum, Obama needs to stop his anti-business rhetoric. He needs to quit bitching about oil companies, pharma, financials, you name it, and be a bit more of a cheerleader for the economy. That alone would change the tone in this country.
5. If the above doesn't achieve a balanced budget, then fine, hit the rich people to pay more. I will be OK with it. But you NEVER NEVER NEVER raise taxes first, because there is no incentive for a government to reduce spending.
6. After Rosie O'Donnell consumers lunch consisting of Indian food, Thai & Mexican, with a whole lotta hot sauce, she will then sit on willy's face. What does this have to do with my plan? Nothing! I just think it would be funny as hell!
-- Modified on 2/10/2012 12:55:02 PM
I don't want to hear drivel about who's to blame.
I want to know, since you are dialed in on Obama, WHAT is he going to do to fix this.
Care to see what CBO says interest on the deficit driven debt will be in 2050?
So, convince me Obama is "the guy".
The economy is a huge animal and no one man or one administration can cause the failures or find the way to fix them. I don't think any President should ever be blamed solely for a bad economy not should one get credit because an economy is good.
Sure, Presidents and Congress can influence an economy but they can't control it.
I just hope that cooler heads will someday prevail -- an unlikely scenario in today's bipartisan world -- and that some simple things -- like reducing spending -- will have a positive effect on the poor status of today's American economy.
To answer your question, while I think no one person can fix the economy, there are others with a much better chance to help it get pointed in the right direction than Obama. Any of the four current Republican candidates would be better. They may not make better Presidents overall, but when it comes to the economy, they would be a much better first than the guy who never ran anything but a community organization prior to moving to the White House.
the possible effects of tax, regulation, trade, and foreign policy and really focus it, the effects can be dramatic.
So, Obamabots want their boy again AND control of Congress.
I think it's fair to ask the cheerleaders to explain themselves.
BTW, below is addresses the "Bush tax cut issue" and it is by CBPP so I assume the wonkas of the world wont call the chart biased. It demostrates that EVEN IF we repeal the tax cuts or "pay for them" with spending cuts, debt will balloon to 100% of GDP by 2050.
-- Modified on 2/10/2012 9:25:26 AM
1. Cut entitlements;
2. Cut defense spending;
3. Raise taxes.
Now the minute you say "we can't do it. We must have another aircraft carrier," then you are the problem.
But how to do it is easy- doing it is the problem.
Cut defense spending, cut entitlements, eliminate mortgage interest deduction, raise taxes on rich, wow. Talk about a bunch of losing ideas. All have been extensively discussed, analyzed and explored.
Cutting defense spending means losing jobs, the more you cut the more you have to layoff. So, just how much do you want to cut. Some cuts can be justified but they have to be very precise. Like it or not, we export a lot of this stuff. The US is a big arms dealer.
Housing is a big part of the economy, if you eliminate the deduction you will kill what little construction there is in housing. You are basically raising taxes on the middle, increasing unemployment, forcing more mortgage defaults. Bottom line, we will speed up the move to a nation of unemployed renters.
Raise taxes on the rich! The rich pay most of the taxes in this country, far more than most of you realize. Yes, there are a few loop holes that should be closed. Like it or not, if you raise taxes you will have less jobs here and more overseas. Investment capital will move to Canada, Asia even Europe. The rich don't have to make money. They can't live quite well, not invest, not work and buy government bonds. Probably German Bund.
Let's see, that leaves "Cut Entitlements". Yes, after all they paid SS for years, why not tell them to just fuck off.
if we don't address the debt problem.
Aside from that, the last thing we need is to preserve jobs in the defense industry. That guy who knows how to make land mines, I want him to lose his job and get into another line of work. Same with the guy who knows how to make Stinger missiles. I'd love to put Raytheon employees out of work.
As for the housing industry, we don't need new construction now we are so overbuilt. There are over a million vacant homes in the US right now - and you want to build more to preserve the housing industry?
As for entitlements, when you get in a mess like this, everyone has to take a haircut. Entitlements are no different fundamentally than Greek bonds when you are talking about debt issues.
But you are not alone in your views - in fact, your like- minded brothers just went on a 48 hour strike in Greece.
Engage brain before typing. All of the negatives I listed is just the tip of the iceberg.
We won't have a recession but a depression. Like 1929 depression.
Do you follow the news at all. Ben Bernanke has tried to tell the POTUS on several occasions and in public forums they need to address the spending side of the equation.
Obama is always harping about raising taxes but nothing about cutting spending, nothing.
He wants to raise more money to spend more.
Wrong again . . .
Engage brain before typing. All of the negatives I listed is just the tip of the iceberg. We won't have a recession but a depression. Like 1929 depression. Do you follow the news at all. Ben Bernanke has tried to tell the POTUS on several occasions and in public forums they need to address the spending side of the equation. Obama is always harping about raising taxes but nothing about cutting spending, nothing.
He want to raise more money to spend more. You can't spend your way out of debt.
Our only chance is to invest our way out of debt. You need Wall Street and big markets to do that.
Money + Labor = Profits. Profits pays taxes.
It is the retail transactions as well. More than any 1 single factor, it was the lack of RE transactions and the economic activity it spawns that dried up business. Dont believe me? Look at a settlement sheet and think about everyone that gets paid when a deal goes down. Construction and related services, ie pest control, title, finance, escrow personel. No transactions, no jobs. I got a friend that lost 1/4mil when his escrow co went kaput.
Not understanding this and allowing banks to play extend and pretend is IMO one of Obama's biggest failures. HAMP was a joke.
keep these collateral beneficiaries of a typical house sale employed if the end result is to add another new house for sale to the over one million that are currently on the market?
Until we clear out this inventory, housing prices are going to stay depressed and many underwater home owners are either going to suffer foreclosure or take a government handout.
Let's take the pain now and flush the system.
Hopefully we can agree that it is the private sector that provides revenue to government, not the other way around. If we want revenues to grow we need to get the private sector showing REAL growth or activity first, that in turn bring capital off the sidelines, investing and taking chances, and paying REAL wages.
THIS is how you grow an economy. Obama preserved the cost of government by "saving jobs" AT THE EXPENSE of the private sector. And his classwarfare, anti-business rhetoric made it worse.
He did'nt even need to spend a shitload of money to accomplish it either. All he had to do was appreciate and understand the private sector. But THAT is not his base and he has ZERO experince with it. Don't you find his laughing about "shovel ready not being so shovel ready" astoundingly stupid? Especially when the comments were made in the context of him being told what red tape had to be cut.
The banks need to take the pain and refi/modify and flush out their REO inventory. THAT is the overhead impediment.
If you didn't even vote for the guy, you really think there's anyone here that's going to convince you? I never waste my time trying to convince anyone who's mind is already made up! 
This way, irregardless of whether my mind is made up or not, you can still present your case.
And BTW, I agree to some degree with Mari.
Current entitlements need to be cut to match the economies ablility to pay. Future entitlements need to be cut severly.
We spend WAY too much on defense and could cut WITHOUT harming our ability to defend ourselves, (which for you proggy libs, is an enumerated duty of the federal government, NOT subsidizing TER working girls plumbing maintenance).
And while I'm not sure we need to raise taxes, we do need to consider ways to get the richer folks to direct their capital in ways that create jobs.
as well as cut spending or you will never make meaningful progress on the national debt much less the budget deficit.
In the short term, raising taxes is not going to depress the economy. Making everyone pay one percent more in income tax is not going to depress business activity in the short term or reduce consumer spending materially, But it will make a huge difference in dealing with the debt.
While we are at it we should eliminate the mortgage interest rate deduction. Why? Bc it is the single most special interest legislation in the Code. It benefits only the middle class and mortgage lenders. The poor and lower middle class can't afford homes anyway and the rich don't need a mortgage.
Yet no one even proposes taking this out of the tax code.
misunderstand the importance of NOT turning the economics of RE on it's head.
I don't have a problem raising revenue especially on the ultra rich. What I object to vehemently is the bullshit that raising revenue will cure both the debt and deficit. It is the breadth and growth rate of spending that is at the heart of it.
BTW, have you noticed NO ONE has explained how Obama was the cure for the ailment?
"we do need to consider ways to get the richer folks to direct their capital in ways that create jobs." Where did it get him? Where did it get us?
I guess I just resent your approach! That some how, I need to justify my political choices to you! Who in the hell are you?!? Now, if you want to know my opinion, and are truly open to it, that's a different matter. Oh, and if you are, my short answer is, I don't believe in trickle down economics. But, I do agree with you that there needs to be a way to get, not just rich people, but everyone with some capitol, to start up businesses, and develop new products and services that produce steady and well paying jobs. Bush's approach did not work, and electing another Republican to do the same exact thing is not the answer in my book.
unless you represent all Obamabots. So instead of being a puss and telling me about your resentments, just STFU. You're not REQUIRED to post.
That said, I agree that simply cutting rates is NOT the type of tax policy I would be in favor of. Bush cut rates so now relatively few pay anything. To not acknowledge that truth and cast the entire blame on just the tax cut at higher incomes is disingenuous. I would'nt squack at all if rates got raised back to clinton levels IF we provided incentives for sure, everyone with capital, to invest in business ventures.
There we butt up against regulatory hurdles that need to be revised to put US manufacturing at a more competitive advantage against foreign made goods.
given your need for name calling, and the juvenile use of STFU! It doesn't surprise me however, given how your OP oozes a sense of grandiosity and entitlement. No, I didn't think you were directing your question solely to me. I'm not that grandiose!
"who the hell do you think you are"?
I'm not surprised though. Obama's record is impossible to defend, so you just make it about me.
"Obama's record is impossible to defend..." Told ya! Why would I waste my time on a closed mind!
And, no! I wasn't being sensitive, just trying point out how your approach doesn't motivate me to spend any time addressing your challenge!
we could have never had the discussion without it.
-- Modified on 2/10/2012 5:54:05 PM
waste much of my time your challenge. Though there were some thoughtful presentations relating to what various individuals would do, not much was directed to your original question. Though it was couched in terms of an invite to a dialog, it was merely an invite to participate in the same old visceral mimetic rivalry of, let's say, Yankee fans vs. Red Sox fans!
beside your 5 posts whining about how i phrased the OP, you've spent no time on this thread at all. lol
This way, irregardless of whether my mind is made up or not, you can still present your case.
And BTW, I agree to some degree with Mari.
Current entitlements need to be cut to match the economies ablility to pay. Future entitlements need to be cut severly.
We spend WAY too much on defense and could cut WITHOUT harming our ability to defend ourselves, (which for you proggy libs, is an enumerated duty of the federal government, NOT subsidizing TER working girls plumbing maintenance).
And while I'm not sure we need to raise taxes, we do need to consider ways to get the richer folks to direct their capital in ways that create jobs.
1) Grow the economy. Remember, we just went through the biggest economic contraction since the Great Depression. Tax revenues are going to be depressed. In short, the size of the deficit will only be temporary.
2) Raise more revenue. When guys like Mitt Romney are getting taxed at 13.9%, it's no wonder we have a problem. We need to make the tax code progressive again, and we need to tax imports to keep jobs on our shores. I also like the idea of putting a small transaction tax on stock trades. It would raise a ton of revenue and add some stability to the market.
3) Cut spending. Cutting "entitlements" will cost us more tax revenue than it will save. It's a dumb move, and causes unnecessary pain to boot. Meanwhile the defense and security budgets are obnoxiously immense. Do we really need a navy that's 14 times bigger than China? We have entire branches of gov't that are essentially just used to subsidize business. Do we really need an Agriculture Department, when most Americans aren't farmers anymore, and it's just used to give corporate welfare to Monsanto and ADM?
Remember, the last time we went through a major economic contraction (the Great Depression), while fighting two wars, our GDP to debt ratio reached 125%. We were smart enough to pay that down in the 50's. But will the GOP ever commit themselves to paying down the debt, when their goal is to "drown" the US government "in the bathtub"?
Get the Congress to raise taxes on the top tier incomes! We can start with Mitt paying the same percentage of his income in taxes that an average working man pays, instead of the 14.8% that he pays now!!!
Allow International Corp's to repatriate their capital without restrictions on the use. They can buy back shares, pay dividends or invest. Huge amount of money held overseas will flow into the United states. Some will go to dividends, which is in pension funds, stock holders. Not a bad thing. More people will have money in their pocket to spend, payoff bills or invest or retire on. Some will be invested which will create some jobs.
Build the Keystone pipeline. Dam it, its, 30,000 jobs, will help stabilize oil prices and reduce the dollars we ship to the Middle East. Yea, they will go to Canada, however Canada is a large trading partner of the US and we can get those dollars back by exporting goods built in the US with American labor, that's American Jobs. Fucking dumb ass Obama.
Lower Corporate taxes. This will make US goods cheaper on the international markets. We would be more completive and sell more abroad.
Germany has 4 - 5 % unemployment. You would be shocked on how they do it. Check it out. It's well reported and widely discussed. I don't advocate we go down that road but we have to lower the cost of US labor. Factory pay has to go down or held in check.
Government spending has to change. Fraud and waste is huge. That has to change and we need to do it by firing a lot of people in Washington regardless of party.
If you teams is 10 - 2 and makes the playoffs you keep the coach. If is 2 - 10 you fire the coach. It's as simple as that. Fuck party politics, vote them out. Get rid of the I'm a Demoricate or Republican Bull Shit. Let the politicians know they get one chance. Get it done or get gone.
Fact is Obama didn't get it done just like Bush. Time for a new team.
1. First and foremost you reduce Federal Spending of GDP from current levels of 25% to the historical norm of 20%. The 20% to 25% increase happened over the past 3 years. I would do it over 5 years so as not to shock the system. Govt spending is still spending, albeit always misguided.
2. Capture lost revenue - The IRS doesn't realize close to $400B in lost revenue as it result of an underground economy (and no I'm not just talking about Mexicans. It's anybody who works with cash), and our arcane tax system. A flat tax still focuses on an employer based W2 system to ensure collection. We do have to move to a sales tax based system that captures lost revenue. Progressives - before you foam at the mouth and have seizures, we can still work out a system where somebody making less than X pays nothing in federal taxes. As a result we remove all tax credits and tax deductions. That should keep marikod off the property tax kick for awhile, so he can focus on drones and Roman Polansky.
3. Immigration and Education - I really love our hispanic brothers and sisters, and I know that they provide valuable labor which keeps certain costs in check, bu our educational system sucks. Maybe there is a correlation. Just today Obama is giving waivers to 10 states to delay the "No Child Left Behind". We seriously enforce the border, and focus immigration towards those with a minimum of an undergraduate degree. Degrees must be in science, tech, math or engineering. As a result, they will get jobs as there are over 3M jobs avbl today that require specific skills, competencies and education. They will pay a lot in taxes, and they will buy homes, which no doubt helps the housing problem vs the govt throwing another $25B at the problem.
4. Growth policies - There are a number of ways to encourage growth, and I don't want to belabor them here, but at a minimum, Obama needs to stop his anti-business rhetoric. He needs to quit bitching about oil companies, pharma, financials, you name it, and be a bit more of a cheerleader for the economy. That alone would change the tone in this country.
5. If the above doesn't achieve a balanced budget, then fine, hit the rich people to pay more. I will be OK with it. But you NEVER NEVER NEVER raise taxes first, because there is no incentive for a government to reduce spending.
6. After Rosie O'Donnell consumers lunch consisting of Indian food, Thai & Mexican, with a whole lotta hot sauce, she will then sit on willy's face. What does this have to do with my plan? Nothing! I just think it would be funny as hell!
-- Modified on 2/10/2012 12:55:02 PM
We - or at least I - are talking about reducing the national debt. Even if we stopped the increase in the national debt every year, we are still in big trouble. The current debt is unsustainable and has even been described as a national security problem by some:
"Our rising debt levels (pose) a national security threat."—US Secretary of State Hillary Clintonto Council on Foreign Relations, Sept. 2010
“The biggest threat we have to our national security is our debt…the interest on our debt is $571 billion in 2012 and that’s notionally about the size of the Defense Department budget. It’s not sustainable."—Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, June 2010
"We've reached a point now where there's an intimate link between our solvency and our national security."—Richard Haass, president, Council on Foreign Relations
But I agree with you on one point - take out all tax deductions - including the deduction you currently get for property taxes you pay - and we will effectively rise your property tax.
Take that, Proposition 13.
Federal Spending vs Revenue on a yearly basis. If you want to talk about reducing the debt, you need to start with balancing the budget. Let's walk before we run.
Now, if we balance the budget, then with normal growth, the percent of debt to GDP naturally declines. It would be nice to get the debt to zero, but who are we kidding.
Prop 13 is a State issue, not a Federal issue you putz. So listen you short, slow, lack of any discernible athletic skills, ACC loser, my plan is a logical plan that bridges both ideologies.
-- Modified on 2/10/2012 2:09:14 PM
approaching intelligent to say on the subject.
willy thinks we're still in the 50s.
and these guys get to vote?
to his responses. I have to give him shit because of his alma mater, his lack of athletic ability, and his constant argument about repealing Prop 13, and he doesn't even live in California.
Re liberals, more specifically Progressives, I have to go back to an earlier post I made. Progressives here in SoCal are some of the most inflexible, angry, gotta have my way, foaming at the mouth jerks I've ever met. Now when I do confront them, I have a tendency to poke my finger in their eye, so I'm a bit at fault for their reactions. But hey, it amuses me (lol).
your right about the lib/proggys though. most of the time you can shut em up simply by asking "what's your proposal"? as this thread has demonstrated.
lets talk about how santorum wants to steal our rubbers instead! lol
That's because Marikod, unlike the libs here who debate with crayons and goofball photos ,is skilled at debate, often making those with opposing views consider his opinion.
I was pro relentless predator drone attacks, until Marikod brought some points up I hadn't seriously considered .
I also give priapus credit for enlightening me . I used to think all Jews were good people .
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/12/world/asia/12drones.html?pagewanted=all
They don’t seem to be on national TV very often. Any idea why? Still not too late for you to become a Duke fan.
As for the property tax, I suffer the ignominy of having to pay property taxes in two different states –my place on the Outer Banks and my principal residence. And since I don’t do mortgages, the mortgage interest deduction does not do me any good, so that’s why I like your idea of getting rid of deductions, although a true flat tax has way too many problems to work.
But as for normal growth reducing the debt that is true, but don’t forget that we pay about 3% of our GDP each year to service the debt and the service charge is so low in part bc interest rates are at rock bottom. Once rates begin to rise, the mere cost of servicing the debt will be a significant drag on GDP even with a “balanced budget” and normal growth.
And your "balanced budget" plan would not cover off budget items anyway, but we'll save that for another day LOL.
1) Historically, we've used higher federal spending to work our way out of an recession. History demonstrates (such as Roosevelt's recession in '37-'38) that cutting federal spending will put right back into a recession. The time to cut is when the economy has fully recovered, and not a second sooner.
2) Sales taxes are regressive, no matter how you cut it. It will disincentivize consumer spending, which is the cause of the recession we're in. If we're going to tax consumption, it should be the consumption of investments. Plenty of more revenue can be captured just by making sure billionaires pay more in taxes than burger flippers.
3) Immigration is hurting our economy. It's sole purpose isn't to keep "costs in check", but to lower wages. This recession continues solely because consumer spending is down, and that continues solely because consumers are broke. There is no reform you can make to our education system that will fix our trade policies. There is not a single field that can't be killed by outsourcing with cheap labor, with the sole exception of corporate executives, for obvious reasons.
4) It seems strange to me that the people who run oil companies, big pharma, and venture capitalists need the President of the United States to be their cheerleader. Who knew that "the Masters of the Universe" would need so much encouragement and tax payer funded pats on the asses. I thought the only thing that matter to them was making a buck, and as the graph below shows, under Obama's tenure the Dow Jones has gone nowhere but up. If these narcissistic criminal asshats need a hug to deal with their own self-conscious or feelings of guilt, then they should go see a therapist on their own damn dime instead of asking the President of the United States to give them a reassuring hand job.
5) Raising taxes creates the incentive to reduce government spending. It's human nature. People are more frugle with the money they have in their pockets than imaginary money they have on their credit card.
6) I'll let Rosie O'Donnel sit on my face when you give Rachel Maddow a rim job. 
I've noticed most progressives just don't fucking listen.
-- Modified on 2/11/2012 10:21:16 AM
and they cling to the 50's, as if it were remotely analogous.
I'd like to ask you how you think the republicans will? They also seem to be ALLOWING Obama to spend like he is, so they're not without guilt or fault here
OBVIOUSLY this is what both sides want, and their ACTIONS PROVE THIS
block the debt bill by instead calling for cuts in spending, so no, they are not equally culpable.
You're buying Obullshit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_68oow06Nw
Cue up the Oreo/Racist pictures Pri!
-- Modified on 2/10/2012 2:57:05 PM
32 to 28 they voted to RAISE the debt ceiling.. They could of STOPPED the debt raise, but they didn't..
They ONLY pose to be our saviors
-- Modified on 2/10/2012 3:05:30 PM
$1.7 trillion over the next 10 years. A drop in the bucket to be sure but better than what Obama and the Democrats and even RINO's would have wanted. But it was the Tea Party who forced that to happen. Obama wanted a blank check.
So, pushing the issue to the last minute, who exactly are you calling posers? Those who voted down the deal becasue they wanted more, or the ones who voted for it because EVERYONE was blaming them for having the audacity to think we should cut spending?
Like i still claim, the culpability IS NOT equal.
Because I believe BOTH parties are globalists, and BOTH parties are equally at fault... It was far from perfect around here when Bush left office...
The republicans have showed us who they are, and so have the democrats..
So, we agree to disagree 
A welcome change for this board.
Whoever said you are a racist is the dumbass.